Do you think that gun/cigarette manufacturing companies...?

Arrogant much? Maybe you just didn't understand my post?


Then my work here is done. The rest is up to the opinions of the viewers.


What the fuck!? You're doing the same shit that GinIchimaru did. This is bullshit, I know I wasn't mocking shit.

To be honest, I think neither the people who make cigarettes, nor the people who make BB guns/real guns should be sued. I mean, it's up to the government to regulate what they are allowed to sell, and up to the purchaser how to use it, so the only really suable entities in this discussion is the buy and the government.

In Denmark, we have, in our judicial system, a concept called "if an ordinary human should be able to figure out what is going to happen if he uses *Product A* in a certain way, the makers can't be sued.

I think this is a great principle, one that makes sure companies in Denmark can be sued for stupid shit like someone drying their dog in a microwave oven because the manual didn't mention you shouldn't. Same thing applies here, if you fire a gun or smoke a cigarette, you know what's going to happen.

Because I never said outright where I stand, but was rather criticizing(Not fucking mocking) your position. Through my posts, however, I implied that neither company should be blamed for the for the actions of their customer. What the people do with their new toy is up to them, and the company cannot control the outcome of what happens in the end.

If the item does something it's not supposed to, it's the company's problem.

What he said, obviously.

Lets sue the knife companies too there have been alot of stabbings throughout the years

From what I saw, rbz was right. Your brain gave you a choice to use logic, but you didn't... is it your brains fault?

Seriously though, how can you say it works for one thing yet say another for an exact same scenario?


This sentence... all we have to change is one word...

"As for guns... I think its the individuals choice though it may have been influenced. The company shouldn't be at all liable."

Notice the italics make your statement exactly the same even though we substituted scenario 2's subject with scenario 1's subject. It's the individual's choice to shoot those people rather than using it as a protective firearm as it was meant to be used.

Just because I use good argumentative techniques by quoting the opposition makes me a poser? I thought it was standard that everyone learned to write an argumentative paper in high school or even in lower grades? Unless you haven't gotten there yet.


And second hand smoke never killed 'innocent people'?

And also, the companies are selling these items with the agreement that the customers are buying these items with good judgment, meaning from when it is bought, it is then the customer's responsibility and it is ultimately the customer's choice that leads to a death, not the company.

The companies aren't forcing the customer's to buy these items. Unless you consider addiction as a 'force' which would mean cigarrete companies are worse off than gun production companies.

Where do you live? I didn’t think my sate was that weird when you didn’t smoke while working. All places I have worked made you smoke outside. I have never heard of smoking when people are working other than hard labor job’s and maybe I’m wrong but smoking while you lift shit sounds like it would suck balls. I have never run into a situation where I could get away from a smoker if I really wanted.
And if they absolutly have a problem with it sue the guys that somked around them.

Here, despite strong advice from medical experts to the contrary, a proposal to make restaurants smoke-free to protect waiters and waitresses from passive smoke on the job was overwhelmingly stricken down after an outcry of the gastronomy lobby.
Moreover, some work-places have made their offices nominally smoke-free, but even so, the overwhelming number of work-places is filled to the brim with smoke.
I myself have never so far worked in a factually smoke-free place. I even worked at a place where our immediate superior was a chain smoker; in an office of six people, five of which were non-smokers, he would sit down in the morning, his briefcase literally filled with nothing but packages of Camel. Then he'd light his first one and then smoke literally without the smallest break until closing. One of us non-smokers complained, a day later she got the sack. That is quite the usual practice here, and I am sorry, but you cannot argue it's "my choice" to smoke passively or not in the face of that.

And I’m sorry but you can it's called quitting if it really bothers you that much or as I stated before blame that person not the company because it's them who are smoking in front of you not the company.
For example my grandfather was a smoker but whenever I came over or around him he would put out his cigarette and say don’t smoke because those motherfuckers will rob you blind. Oh and yes he died of lung cancer from smoking but do I blame the company no.

He means second hand smoke. It isn't your choice to inhale the smoke if a coworker decides to smoke, especially since it's mandatory for you to be present at your work place.

EDIT:

I don't see how replacing cigarette with gun in that sentence was taking things out of context, since anything could have been a substitute.

"As for ballpoint pens... I think its the individuals choice though it may have been influenced. The company shouldn't be at all liable."

Anything can be a murder weapon. Ballpoint pens, plastic bags and/or plungers, take your pick. I just put in gun because it was the topic at hand. But seriously, just because a person uses an object to murder someone does not mean the company is responsible which is the same case for a gun.

If you're going to argue that it's still a different case because guns were made to kill people, well so were knives.


It all leads to the same consequence of death. Sure the intent is different, but that still doesn't justify the reason for slowly killing an 'innocent' person just like murder isn't justified. Smokers are also informed about the dangers of second hand smoke yet they smoke in public slowly killing the innocents. The only difference? One of them is legal.


How are they supposed to know? Guns are weapons for people to protect themselves or to use as a sporting medium which can be completely harmless if used SMARTLY unlike cigarettes. You can't use a cigarette "smartly" cause your fucked no matter what unless you stop. Also, cigarette companies KNOW they are killing millions selling their merchandise, yet they still sell them. They also know the effects of second hand smoke and the studies they've done on the negative effects of smoking. From where I'm standing, the cigarette companies are much worse than gun production companies.

Just for the record, because people like to ignore my point and jump to conclusions: No, I don't think either kind of corporation should be held responsible.

Guns are tools expressly designed to wound and kill. You buy them, you know it.
Cigarettes are luxury stimulants with widely publicized effects on your and, above all, other people's health. You buy them, you know it.

It's not the corporation's job to hold your hand and make you use these two items responsibly. That's someone else's job - the government's - and anything else would be an encroachment on government authority.

?? Did you even read the post I have to think you didn’t. I was talking about second hand smoke.

Ah, I see. I misread your first sentence. Sorry 'bout that.

It's cool