Sign in
in
   
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  -Aristotle

About Me

I am a co-founder of Notches, an early stage startup currently based in NYC. We are building a free, open reviews network that anyone can participate in and anyone can build on top of. You can find out more on our official blog.

Read more about my background.

Connect with me on...

Recent Readers

Flickr Photos

 

Warning:

This article is more than 45 days old. Given the speed at which the technology world moves, this post is probably somewhat out of date. Please keep this in mind when reading the post. If this is a tutorial, please check whether you are using the same versions mentioned in the article.

Why do gun manufacturers deserve immunity?

Talk about double standards. A company can be held liable for making software, but somehow deserves immunity for manufacturing weapons?

The Senate is considering whether a bill designed to shield the firearms industry from most lawsuits that result from gun crimes should give children and police the right to sue.

Supporters say the shielding legislation, sponsored by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and backed by the National Rifle Association, is necessary to protect the gun industry from massive, court-ordered damages that could bankrupt it.

The comparison between P2P software companies and gun manufacturers makes a lot of sense to me. Why should we hold them to different standards? But then, logic is moot when you have the NRA and RIAA on opposite sides of the fight.

Read the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act here.

This quote from the NY Times article sums up my thoughts nicely: "Opponents of Craig's bill say no industry should have that kind of legal protection, least of all one that makes and distributes weapons."


View related posts

 

CJ said:

Firearm manufacturers should not be slapped with lawsuits as a result of gun-related *crime*, any more than Microsoft should be sued because a white-collar criminal used Excel to embezzle funds. A gun is a tool, and whether or not you agree with the necessity of that tool, the manufacturer should only find themselves liable if their product fails or presents an undisclosed safety hazard to operators.

Ford was rightfully sued over the Pinto because the fuel tank defect was a known but ignored issue. Should Ford be sued because a drunk driver killed a pedestrian with one of its products? Absolutely not.

July 29, 2005 12:21 PM
 

Keith Apple said:

Tim, I think you have it right. The Supremes said in Grokster that if a software company created a product that had legal and illegal used but heavily marketed it to consumers for illegal uses that the company could be liable. That is the same thing with guns and this gun industry immunity bill is ridiculous. Some firearms manufacturers like Intratec have marketed their guns to criminals with claims like "fingerprint resistant grip" and then when the gun makers' weapons are used to injure and kill people, the victims can't sue?
All of the arguments that guns are merely a tool used by bad people misses the whole point that a small number of gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers disproportionately fuel the illegal gun market and laws as well as lawsuits need to be able to go forward to hold them accountable and save lives. If a lawsuit is really frivilous let a court decide, barring victims rights to sue is immoral, unAmerican, and likely unconstitutional.
July 30, 2005 11:28 AM
   

Tim said:

@CJ: my only point is that you have a double standard. It is much easier to find legimate uses for Excel than a weapon intended to inflict harm, and yet we are willing to hold the makers of Excel liable for crimes but not those who make the guns?

Questions of inducement aside - which the Bill didn't seem to address - that doesn't seem right to me.
August 5, 2005 11:53 AM
 

Loosely Coupled // Tim Marman's Weblog said:

Rob points out an article that suggests that software developers should be held liable for security and...
November 1, 2005 12:51 PM
 

Loosely Coupled // Tim Marman's Weblog said:

Rob points out an article that suggests that software developers should be held liable for security and...
November 1, 2005 12:52 PM