[Bommer]

"This is really a very strong vindication" of the strategy, Kairys said. "The way the manufacturers are endangering the public health and safety is that they are knowingly and intentionally supplying the criminal market. It's really that simple."

So then if someone steals a Ford Expedition and uses it in a high speed chase that kills people, couldn't one assume that since Ford knew that it could go 120 and can runover smaller cars, that Ford also knows they too are selling a deadly product that will only be used for misuse?

[DugwayDuke]

Well, of course this kind of logic would allow one to sue an automaker in the circumstances you described. But, isn't that the argument being made against SUVs? That they are too big and recklessly endanger other drivers?

I debated this very issue with a guncontroll nazi on compuserve years ago. It was his contention that if your gun was stolen and used in a crime, then you should be liable for both civil damages and criminal penalties. If, for example, your gun was used to rob a bank, and in the course of that crime, several people were killed, you could be charged as a co-conspirator in murder and armed robbery as well as being liable for the damages suffered by the bank. I posed the hypothetical that the robbers stole your gun and your neighbors car and used both in the crime, would your neighbor also be liable and a co-conspirator. Of course, his answer was no since your neighbor needed a car but you had no need for a gun.

This gun nazi's intent was quite clear. If these penalties were available, then no one could afford to own a gun. This is the same logic behind these gun suits, to make gun making unaffordable.