Tell this to a lib.
When they have a meltdown that a gun maker would have no liability if gun kills someone ...
Ask them, then why should a vaccine maker have no liability if they kill someone?
Comments (11)
sorted by:
Well depends. If the gun explodes while I'm shooting it I would assume that is a liability.
Yeah, if the gun explodes when you're firing it, the company should be liable.
If your gun is stolen and the thief shoots someone with it, the thief is liable, not the company.
But if a Pfiezer can kill you with a poison jab and get off, why shouldn't the gun manufacturer get off when the gun explodes and takes your hand with it?
I agree.
i just wanted to be funny. :P
Heh, I was kinda itching to make my little analogy.
Exactly, manufacture defect they can get sued for.
Nah. This argument is going to get into the weeds about the purpose of each object. They'll say a gun's purpose is to kill people, so it's an invalid comparison.
I think a better argument is car manufacturers. Say a car manufacturer knowingly sells a model with a flaw that causes the fuel tank to explode in some cases. They market it by saying it's a safe car, even though they know that some are going to have exploding fuel tanks. The government then grants them blanket immunity from any deaths caused by the exploding tanks. To top it off, any time a tank explodes and kills someone, the government tallies it as an unknown accident unrelated to exploding fuel tanks. The government then puts out reports showing that the cars don't suffer from exploding fuel tanks and that the cars are safe to drive.
Gotta pick your battles.
Ruger Firearms has no warranty. If one of their guns fails, they fix it. If there is even a hint of a defect, they do an immediate recall (even if there have been no incidences). They don't a warranty because they stand by their product. After 40+ years of owning Rugers, I stand by them as well. Why don't the big pharma stand by their vaccines? Either they have total confidence that they are going to cause serious injury or death, or they are just clueless and have no idea what they have created. Either way, it is a losing proposition for the sheeple that take the jab.
Good one!
I like the trickiness but i dont like the result which if they concede vaccine makers should be liable implies that gun makers should be also. No likey