>>Today's news brought even more good news. Congress passed a bill protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Terrific! We have a gun fatality rate several times that of ANY OTHER CIVILIZED NATION and this is how we address it? Disgusting.
>>
>I don't own a gun and never will, mostly because I don't know for a fact that if push came to shove I would ever be able to pull the trigger. If you aren't willing to do that.....what's the point. I am profoundly grateful that during my three years of military service I was never in a position of being put to that test. I'd like to think that I wouldn't have gotten anybody killed by freezing but until you're actually there, you just never know.
>
>But our society has determined that guns have some useful purpose outside the military. I tend towards doubting that, but not adamantly so. But I see no reason whatsoever why a gun manufacturer should be held liable for the illegal use of his legal product. Do you sue Ford when some nut puts a bomb in a car and blows it up? Do you sue Compaq/Dell/IBM when one of their computers is used to plant a virus which causes millions of dollars of damage. Do you really think that hold gun manufacturers liable will do anything significant to reduce the level of gun fatalities????????

There is a level of responsibilty that the gun manufacturers should have. For example, when gun manufacture makes a semi-automatic gun, and the only thing someone has to do to make it fully automatic is remove one little tiny piece in it that takes like 3 minutes to do - this is grossly irresponsible and they should be held accountable. Basicly they've done this to increase sales and what you end up with is a bunch of criminals running around with 'street sweeper' type of weapons.