I'm struck by how J&J is now being held accountable for a few rare side effect events from literally millions of vaccine shots (these terrible but fortunate very rare blood clots in women).

And yet, as posted in the NRA thread below, somehow gun-makers are not held responsible for the 'rare' actions of extremists who use guns to become terrorists or felons.

Tell me how this is any different? We know that some members of our society are unstable, and they will reach out via violence. If all they had was knives, that's what they will use - as demonstrated in countries like Japan. In the US, we let them have guns, even assault weapons. And yet we are 'surprised' this happens?

Literally, any OTHER part of our society would solve this by holding those that make $$ off this predictable side-effect accountable.

And before the 2nd Amendment folk chime in, I am NOT talking about restricting ANYONE's Constitutional rights. The first Amendment has been judicated for years that one CAN say whatever one likes, but that does NOT mean there is no consequence of such speech. If all we did was force gun-makers to factor in the true cost to society of their product, we would have far fewer guns - but those that want to be a part of a 'militia' could still do so.

It's simple, really. Guns don't kill people, vaccine makers do.

Congress and a president who signed the law gave them immunity. A big win for the Russian-funded NRA.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

When a vaccine product works, lives are saved.

When a weapon works, lives are taken.

It’s really that simple..

“Handguns are made for killin, ain’t no good for nothing else..”

Quote
sekker
I'm struck by how J&J is now being held accountable for a few rare side effect events from literally millions of vaccine shots (these terrible but fortunate very rare blood clots in women).

[www.newsweek.com]

Fact Check: Are Pharmaceutical Companies Immune From COVID-19 Vaccine Lawsuits?

Though millions of people have been vaccinated, some Americans are concerned about the side effects of the vaccines and if pharmaceutical companies such as Moderna and Pfizer could be liable for injuries...

According to 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, "No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

In other words, companies that manufacture vaccines are not liable if someone has an allergic reaction or injury after being vaccinated.

---

J&Js vaccine is not FDA-approved. I’m sure they still take the brunt of liability issues during testing, which is the current scenario.

Update : a pandemic does change the rules. In general, vaccine-makers are still liable during normal times.

[fortune.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2021 11:51PM by sekker.

Should car manufacturers be responsible for drunk drivers?
How about Renault being responsible for the terrorists killing 84 & injuring hundreds?
Louisville Slugger for baseball bat attacks?

Contrary to many claims by gun control politicians & activists, gun manufacturers are still responsible for defective products.

The primary purpose of an automobile is transport.
The primary purpose of a bat is to hit baseballs.
What, in your opinion, is the primary purpose of gun(s)?

Quote
RgrF
What, in your opinion, is the primary purpose of gun(s)?

Protecting us from tyrannical governments?

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
RgrF
What, in your opinion, is the primary purpose of gun(s)?

Protecting us from tyrannical governments?

Quote
mrbill62
Should car manufacturers be responsible for drunk drivers?
How about Renault being responsible for the terrorists killing 84 & injuring hundreds?
Louisville Slugger for baseball bat attacks?

Contrary to many claims by gun control politicians & activists, gun manufacturers are still responsible for defective products.

I have no idea really what politicians and activists really say, but lawyers say your statement is incorrect.

'The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.'

[en.wikipedia.org].

Quote
mrbill62
Should car manufacturers be responsible for drunk drivers?

Governments have been challenged with dealing with the negative consequences of alcohol for centuries. That is a straw-man argument.

Or are you talking about cars? We have massive laws for users that drink and drive. Driving requires a regular vision test, etc.

Name me a single state that monitors and regulates gun use - any kind of gun - at the same level.

IMO all these comparisons are a bit flawed.

Maybe it would be helpful to cite a specific problem that gun makers should be held liable for and aren't.

---

Quote
mattkime
IMO all these comparisons are a bit flawed.

Maybe it would be helpful to cite a specific problem that gun makers should be held liable for and aren't.

Every single human death that is not in self-defense.

Quote
sekker

Quote
mattkime
IMO all these comparisons are a bit flawed.

Maybe it would be helpful to cite a specific problem that gun makers should be held liable for and aren't.

Every single human death that is not in self-defense.

Do we apply the same standard to auto makers?

---

Quote
mattkime

Quote
sekker

Quote
mattkime
IMO all these comparisons are a bit flawed.

Maybe it would be helpful to cite a specific problem that gun makers should be held liable for and aren't.

Every single human death that is not in self-defense.

Do we apply the same standard to auto makers?

This is a great question. Right now, we are using a negligence-based auto tort regime

[www.cato.org]

But this is going to be re-visited when/if true self-driving cars come to market.

In the meantime, there is a patch in most states - we require auto insurance by the driver in case they kill or maim someone.

I would be fine if we used the same strategy for guns - require gun owners to have insurance to cover what happens with their guns, even if they do not pull the trigger.

Quote
sekker
But this is going to be re-visited when/if true self-driving cars come to market.

Okay, how about knives or baseball bats. Maybe those are simpler.

Quote
mattkime

Quote
sekker
But this is going to be re-visited when/if true self-driving cars come to market.

Okay, how about knives or baseball bats. Maybe those are simpler.

No clue, but they do not kill or harm nearly as many people - every day - in this country as guns or cars. Seems like a totally different category and just not really the equivalent.

I do appreciate the comparison to cars - and I have no idea why insurance could not be required for gun ownership.

Quote
sekker
and I have no idea why insurance could not be required for gun ownership.

That's a cost burden that infringes on my right to own 23 very expensive firearms.

There's absolutely no need to go down the rabbit hole of justifying making gun manufacturers liable for gun usage if what you want to do is either regulate or ban guns.

I will note however, that what makes firearms unique is that the primary objective is death. And as a tool, none are better for individualized targets.

Quote
deckeda

I will note however, that what makes firearms unique is that the primary objective is death. And as a tool, none are better for individualized targets.

^this.

Knives and baseball bats have alternate, primary uses (and are far less deadly, to boot). A gun’s primary use is to intimidate, injure, or kill.

It’s the effectiveness of the tool that both suggests and compels usage. Ask any surgeon or mechanic.

I can’t butter bread very well with a gun, but a deadly-weapon knife excels at spreading jam. All of which is precisely what drives sales of both.

Re: guns being a “tool” for a job: Have you ever bought a tool you never used? Not often, especially one you spent hundreds of dollars on.

My point is, if you buy a gun, you’re going to want to use it. Some folks are going to really, really want to use it. Target shooting (unless you bought it for that purpose) is just a temporizing activity.

Quote
mattkime
IMO all these comparisons are a bit flawed.

If the product does what it is designed for, there is no negligence.
- A vaccine is designed to safely prevent infection in the user/recipient.
- A gun is designed to allow the user to safely propel a projectile at high, damaging speeds at an object.

Are we going to hold automakers accountable for a driver than runs over and kills multiple people?

How about the alcohol company accountable for the drunk driver that kills people?

How about the DA that doesn't prosecute to the full extent of the law for the felon who commits another heinous act? Or failure to prosecute the person that lies on the paperwork to purchase a firearm? There's a very prominent person who falls into this category.

What about the people who know that someone is a threat but doesn't report them?

At some point, we need to hold individuals responsible for their behavior.