Why Is Congress Protecting the Gun Industry?

Gun manufacturers and dealers enjoy broad legal immunity, even though lawsuits against them would help improve safety

  • Share
  • Read Later
Paul Edmondson / Getty Images

Wade's Gun Shop, Bellevue, Wash.

Daniel Williams, a 16-year-old high school basketball star, was shot and badly injured while practicing outside of his home in Buffalo, N.Y. In October, a New York appeals court did something fairly remarkable. It let Williams proceed with a lawsuit against the maker and seller of the gun that that was used to shoot him.

Letting a lawsuit go forward may not sound like a big deal, but Congress enacted a law in 2005 — under heavy lobbying from the NRA and the gun industry — that gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry even when it makes guns that are unnecessarily dangerous and sells them recklessly.

(MORE: A Sportsman’s View: We Need a Moderate Alternative to the NRA)

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings, there have been widespread calls for Congress to pass gun control laws — and it should. But there has been less talk about another important tool that could be used to reduce gun violence: lawsuits against the gun industry. Some of these suits can succeed despite the PLCAA — as the Daniel Williams case shows — and we need more of them to be filed. But if Congress wants to get serious about gun violence, it should repeal the PLCAA.

Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better.

Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigation.

(MORE: Cohen: If We Want Gun Control, We’ll Need to Compromise)

Lawsuits also make retailers act more prudently when they sell things. “Dram shop” laws are a classic example. These laws, which allow victims of drunk drivers to sue the bar that sold the liquor, put pressure on bars and restaurants not to let people drive home drunk.

Before the PLCAA, lawsuits were starting to prod the gun industry to act more responsibly. In 2000, Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer, agreed to a variety of safety conditions to end lawsuits that threatened to put it in bankruptcy. Among other things, Smith & Wesson agreed to put a second, hidden set of serial numbers on all of its new guns to make it harder for criminals to scratch away the identifying markings.

But the PLCAA took away the pressure to work on safety. Protected against lawsuits, gun manufacturers have less incentive to develop improved technology for locking guns when they are not in use and gun dealers have less reason to worry about whether the person they are selling a firearm to will use it to commit a crime.

(MORE: Sandy Hook Shooting: Video Games Blamed, Again)

The PLCAA contains exceptions that allow lawsuits in some cases — and gun control advocates and victims of gun violence should bring more suits that take advantage of these exceptions. One of the biggest exceptions is a provision that allows gun makers and sellers to be held liable when they know they are breaking a federal or state law. This is the one the New York appeals court relied on in allowing Daniel Williams’ suit to proceed. Williams is suing the Ohio seller who sold the firearm used to shoot him. He is alleging that the seller had reason to know that the buyers were gun traffickers who would turn around and resell the guns they bought on the criminal market.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is using this same loophole in a wrongful death suit that it filed this month on behalf of a 36-year-old woman who was shot by a stalker. The suit charges that Armslist.com, an Internet gun website, sold the gun used in the crime to the killer even though he did not live in state, as the law requires.

Lawsuits that use PLCAA loopholes to hold the gun industry accountable are important, but they are not enough. We are hearing a lot about gun rights these days — including from the Supreme Court, which has greatly expanded the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But with rights come responsibilities. Congress should repeal the PLCAA and require the gun industry to act according to the same standards of responsibility and safety as the rest of us.

MORE: The Real Gun Violence Discussion

239 comments
Odysseus_M_Tanner
Odysseus_M_Tanner

The author does not seem to grasp that the "loopholes" he describes are just cases where there is actual liability involved.  That's the way it is with guns as with any other product.  The law was necessary to protect the industry from predatory and frivolous lawsuits that have nothing to do with liability - and everything to do with the gun control/prohibitionist agenda.

whiteflynn2
whiteflynn2

No mention of gun crime on a downward spiral (lowest in 20 years and headed down). No mention of the 2.5 million people who defend themselves each year by the display or use of a firearm? 

Don't ya just love subjective journalism?

CaughlanCharles
CaughlanCharles

If Congress enacts gun control on Americans they won't be able to justify the coming raids that will eventually happen.

MichaelFRivero
MichaelFRivero

Suing gun makers for gun crime is like suing the Boeing Aircraft Corporation for 9-11.

MichaelFRivero
MichaelFRivero

If you want the victims of gun crime to be able to sue the gun makers for damages, then let us also allow the victims of drunk driving accidents to sue the car makers and distilleries as well. While we are at it, revoke the special protection granted to vaccine makers that was passed as part of the Homeland Security Act so that people who are actually harmed by poorly made vaccines can sue the pharmaceutical companies. And, given that at least 90% of these mass shootings were committed by people either on or withdrawing from prescription anti-depressants, the victims of those shootings should be allowed to sue the pharmaceutical companies as well. Let's sue the makers of kitchen cutlery for every stabbing death. Let's sue the makers of sporting equipment for every victim beaten to death with a baseball bat, and tool companies for making the hammers used on bludgeoning deaths as well. The family of everyone who dies by electrocution should be allowed to sue the electric company. The family of everyone who dies in a fall should be allowed to sue the makers of ladders and staircases. The family of everyone who commits suicide by hanging should be allowed to sue the rope companies.

DavidBulinski
DavidBulinski

People are just up in arms about 20 innocent children being mercilessly murdered. Just the same as they were with Columbine, Aurora, VT and numerous other mass shootings. When you look at the cold hard numbers, mass shootings account for a very low percentage of shooting deaths in this country. FBI stats show that in 2011 there were over 10000 murders, 8500 of which were by firearm. 6200 of those firearm murders were by handgun. That is 73%!!!!! The problem is NOT so called "assault weapons". The problem is NOT magazine capacity. You want proof? Look at the Luby massacre in Texas back in 1991. That killer didnt use an "assault weapon", and he was able to kill 23 and wound another 27. The Columbine shooters didnt use "assault weapons". Neither did the VT shooter or the man that shot Gabrielle Giffords. Now he used a Glock pistol with a 33 round magazine, but only killed 6 and wounded 13. The Luby shooter used standard magazines and killed and wounded more so magazine size makes NO DIFFERENCE!! 

Mass shootings get lots of media attention because of the single incident body count. What about the thousands of others? The problem with the mass shootings is that majority of the shooters have mental illnesses!!! The current NICS (National Instant Check System) does not provide a way for doctors that have patients that are a danger to be put on a "no firearm" list. Some doctors also hide behind "doctor patient confidentiality". The NRA agrees, and wants a way to make sure every person who has been committed, and or treated and considered a danger to be blocked from purchasing firearms. Every law abiding gun owner I know vehemently agrees. 

Dont believe everything you, see, hear, or read. Do your own research and discover the truth that the mainstream media does not always tell you. Most of the time the media will twist, and only tell you some truths because they sensationalize stories for better ratings. Remember that reporters and journalists are just people too. They have their opinions and are more than likely biased rather than open minded.

fletch
fletch

In the Arms Race article under spotlight, Time claims that the gun homicide rate is 3.2% so in 10 years 32% of the population is killed by guns and none of us live past 35 or so. I think what they meant to say was 3.2 homicides per 100,000 population. They have their decimal off by 5 places! Sloppy Work.

henrikb
henrikb

We already have a way of dealing with dangerous objects.  What do we do with the thing that kills more citizens than anything else?  We register cars and demand people to have a license and last but not least, we demand liability insurance.  Do the same with guns.

RodneyRetz
RodneyRetz

2ND AMENDMENT IS THE REASON TO PROTECT GUN COMPANIES!!!!! IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO BEAR ARMS AND THINK NO ONE HAS THIS RIGHT GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!!!!

TacoNuts
TacoNuts

Using the author's same "logic" (or lack thereof), we should sue HIM, all school districts, and the Federal Government for CREATING gun free zones that ALLOWED the Sandy shootings to occur.  Make Gun Free Zones prohibitively expensive via lawsuits and forced insurance since anti's can't seem to understand the real world.

bibleverse1
bibleverse1

Suing gun manufacturers for defects yes not for willful misuse. Sellers to individuals who violate law yes.

MikefromPA
MikefromPA

Lawsuits against gun manufacturers were fought against by the NRA and other organizations because they were being used to target the manufacturers of legal firearms that were misused by people. Unlike the Ford Pinto that led to deaths through defects in the design and manufacturing process, the guns worked as intended without being defective but were used negligently. By Mr. Cohen's reasoning, alcohol manufacturers such as Anheuser Busch should be sued in drunk driving cases. Before someone throughs out cigarettes as an example, the Government regulated them and provided them for free to armed forces during Korea and Vietnam, so the lawsuits against tobacco companies were a farce as the Government was responsible as well. In addition no one was forced to smoke, they did so at their own risk. Like it or not, semi-auto firearms are the NRA, yet do not join because they claim we do not represent their interests. Last time I checked the NRA goes far beyond gun safety for youths, they also train law enforcement and security guards. They also publish American Hunter, a magazine for members and get involved with legislation to promote and further hunting. Are 30 round magazines needed for hunting? No, but the NRA's primary goal is to preserve our second amendment rights which have everything to do with preventing oppression from our government as well as other governments. For those who need a history lesson a black powder musket was the so called assault rifle during the revolutionary war and citizens owned the same firearm as the army. The semi-auto firearms that are deemed assault rifles are not even close (other than appearance) to what is being used on current battlefields. In summary, if you want your own organization for hunting rights or what you deem as common sense gun control, then go for it. Just don't expect those who believe in the constitution to support you. And I seriously need to understand common sense gun control. Do you really expect any gun owner to believe that a shooter with 10 or 15 round magazines would have killed less people? If so please look up VA tech shooting which was conducted with two handguns; no so called assault rifle. Your primary mission is to enact meaningless gun control measures to whittle away at our rights while achieving no results. That is why organizations such as the NRA and GOA will continue to thrive and gain members. I am proud to be a member of the NRA .

bean2350
bean2350

I grew up in the mountians of PA and own a few guns i hear my uncles and cousins all yelling about bans how they wont let the govt take their guns away the problem is its not their guns the govt wants so they are concerned for no reason at all

I do not see the federal govt banning the sale and use of a .30 06 or a .30.30 nor would i approve of it

however i do feel that a weapon designed to fire more than one round without requiring the target should have federal regs attached.

the govt is not going to ban my dad from buying a new 12 gauge pump or that .50 flintlock muzzelloader kit he is building  

ban the commerical sale of military style weapons i would leave handguns alone (focus on the bad guys here not the guns)

please keep the focus here(weapons ban) on what we are trying to stop which is the mass shootings and change the focus of the police from drugs to violent crime

commentonitall
commentonitall

"Locking a gun" is the individuals responsibility, not the manufacturer's.  That's like saying car manufacturers should include ways to keep drunk people from driving their vehicles.  Or companies that produce potentially poisonous chemicals should insure no one ever ingests them.  How about gas companies making sure their gas is never set on fire to keep people from getting burned.  Your lack of knowledge of guns shows through in your writings and personal responsibility goes a long way, it's just that Americans and people like you think it should not exist when that is the only and real problem.

Boony
Boony

Congress should make it legal for individuals to sue companies for selling a product to a person that commits a crime? Because lawsuits in this country have worked so wonderfully for us. Where would it stop? Using the basic idea stated in this article, a victim could potentially sue McDonalds if the perpetrator ate there before committing the crime....who knows they might have provided bad customer service to the criminal which made him angry thus committing whatever crime against his/her chosen victim (I could come up with scenarios all day!). More laws and regulations are not going to make crime stop, they are not going to make every person "good", and they won't stop disaster. Imposing regulations on everyone for a few peoples obviously terrible decisions is not a way to fix a problem, it's a way to band aid the problem, to sweep it under the rug and hope no one looks under there.  

macumbero86
macumbero86

Time Magazine argues that gun manufacturers should be sued for the crimes
committed with guns they manufacture. In other news, Time argues that
car makers and whiskey distillers should be sued for drunk driving
deaths, knife makers should be sued for stabbing deaths, skateboard
manufacturers should have to pay for skateboard accidents. Oh, wait,
that would require consistency.

kratos1256
kratos1256

Guns are pieces of machinery designed to kill something. Suing the gun company if someone is shot is about the dumbest thing on the face of the planet. However, it is smart from a gun control standpoint in that it forces the gun companies to have to spend lots of money defending themselves because of a little-known fact that the gun control people do not tell to the general public, which is that the gun manufacturing industry is actually pretty tiny. It does not finance the NRA and so forth the way they make people think it does, as it's too small to have that kind of influence. As such, it is excellent for suing to try to just drive it out of business.

dlee4
dlee4

This concept I disagree. My table saw is very dangerous. It is a proven fact that many are hurt by this machine. So should I sue the maker because I either missuse the machine or use the machine correctly by also hurt although the manufactor  made the saw correctly? No as long as the saw meets industry standards then it is a good saw and the manufactor should not be held responsible. I purchased the saw with no required training or certification and at my own risk.

superlogi
superlogi

Banning people who would kill and psychos who would figure out devious ways to kill is beyond my pathetic understanding of the human condition.  I'll leave that up to you social scientists, who before you become lawyers seem to have an answer for everything.

VincentLovece
VincentLovece

Why? The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court.

chorst294
chorst294

My job for more than a decade is to protect people from violent crime, including gun-related crimes. I use a firearm to carryout my job. I'm quite familiar with criminals, many of which carry firearms. I'll be the first to tell you most criminals don't obtain firearms in a legal fashion. I've seen hundreds of convicted felons arrested for having a firearrm, and then released after a very short sentence, if any. As much as I would love to see these guys serve long sentences, I understand that the prison system is already overflowing, and new prisons mean higher taxes. This problem is far too complex to simply say, "Ban Guns" or "Make more gun control laws." There's more than enough gun control laws on the books now, we need to get serious about enforcing laws we have today. Regardless, criminals by nature do not obey laws. It's horrible that people die at the hands of a madman with a firearm, however, lets remember that there is no easy fix to this problem. You may end up doing more bad than good.

krankenstein111
krankenstein111

why dont they pass a law from building any more guns at all? you might have a right to own one, but you dont have a right to have a government that provides them.

cybervigilante
cybervigilante

Twenty mothers cried through the worst Christmas of their lives in Newtown. But the selfish paranoid gun freaks and rightwing scum only have one thought: 'Bamy gonna get their guns. I hope they all burn in hell with Wayne LaDerrier.

EdWallace
EdWallace

why not a law to hold auto manufacterers accountable for drunk drivers

EdWallace
EdWallace

why not a laq alloqing the auto makers to be sued becaucse a drunk driver killed a person

dontn123
dontn123

On December 17, 2012, Senator Feinstein announced the key provisions of the bill she intends to introduce. The proposed legislation will ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of over 100 specific firearms. Also banned will be certain named semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can use a detachable magazine, as well as fixed magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

The sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of other ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds will also be banned."

http://www.decodedscience.com/new-assault-weapons-ban-no-gun-seizure/22871

You better read it and read it well for more then 100 different guns Many Many Many More then just AR15.....it is hand guns, shot guns, and rifles, so on.... Wake Up



redwine209
redwine209

Now they want to ban guns because drug prohibition is working so well huh. This just gives drug cartels and other criminal organizations an excuse to smuggle in these guns illegally because we all know if these sick individuals want to acquire these firearms they will. 

ShamsAci
ShamsAci

Possessing Gun may be a need for national safety but an average citizen should be restricted from keeping, carrying and using guns because they (guns etc.) are the root of multiples of evils on earth.

danieldiazmarta
danieldiazmarta

Lets keep guns in the hands of police and military. None of you amateurs should have guns. 

cybervigilante
cybervigilante

Here's a shocker. NRA backs gun rights for felons:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html

Honest to God, that's not a joke. Amazing. It shows what the NRA really stands for. As much gun sales as possible. Heck, felons can't even vote or get food stamps but they can get a gun.

Now that it's an issue they're suddenly smooth-talking it's the felons, not the guns, that are at fault. But they Want felons to have guns since it means more sales for their masters at Bushmaster, et al.

ArxFerrum
ArxFerrum

Well, it seems clear that TIME has no interest in offering a citizen common for dialogue. If you don't take an anti-gun view, your comment gets censored out. 

JustMsKate
JustMsKate

This is interesting but I still think that legislation and fines from the government for not following strict legislation works better than litigation. For example with this article use of the the drink driving situation I don't think it is the bar person's responsibility to stop a drunk driver...that is the drinker's responsibility at some point they choose to drink too much and then hop in their car and drive. Yes maybe the bar should provide alternative forms of transport but ultimately they cannot control someone's behavior or choices and how are they meant to know the intentions of the drinker once they leave the bar...I think it removes that level of personal responsibility. Relying on loopholes in the law are not an efficient or effective way to combat this problem. America needs to stop being so afraid of government legislation. 

dontn123
dontn123

If the basket ball player named in this report had been ran over by a drunk driver then why should he not be able to sue the Auto Manufacturer.  For that matter why couldn't the liquor or beer company that got the automobile driver drunk be sued account it could be stated the car and the alcohol is why the accident happened.  Right or Wrong?

Was it just me or did anyone else notice the Sandy Hook family members seemed to be smiling a lot for the cameras? When my brother died many years ago everyone in the family was sad for months and that is what I noticed with most other families that have known too...except these in the video links below.

Check these links

Watch first:
http://youtu.be/9QVKu4_JxcE

Devil Sign in background picture OWL
http://youtu.be/2r1IFaR_LEY

Notice the smiling then the realigning of emotions as if getting into character or acting  MADE ME SICK and notice he states lost the family member just the day before?  This is ALL CREEPY and it was TELEVISED by local and major news media.  
http://youtu.be/ne3gny7eqfQ

EaglesPain
EaglesPain

So...who, what company will build the hundreds of thousands of weapons for our military if we run these rascals into the poor house? What? Made in China? Again?

FrankFC
FrankFC

Ergo, ipso facto, problem solved! I think we have to blame the feminists for all this gun obsession. Once women took control of the sexual act, the older generation of males transferred sexual desire over to guns, starting with John Wayne movies, then graduating on through Stallone, Willis, Van Damme and Schwarzenegger blow the crap out of them movies. 

Sanity won't prevail in this debate until males everywhere clear their heads of the inane and grandiose fantasy that guns have a majestic, holy place in the human heart and are much more than a simple killing tool like poisons and a host of other things. Maybe it will have to wait until that anachronistic and silly Second Amendment allows private nukes, before people wake up.

Higg's_Bosom
Higg's_Bosom

So, a firearms manufacturer is being sued for selling a lawful product that was then abused? "Unnecessarily dangerous" guns? I'm not a legal expert by any means, but your simplified version of this story is close to the stupidest thing I've ever read. C'mon Time, splurge for some writers who didn't drop ou- wait, this guy teaches at Yale? Christ.

joukot
joukot

The sad conclusion on many of the comments that
I read is that the U.S. deviates from most developed countries in which people
seem to trust in their government and fellow citizens, be it UK, Canada,
Australia, the Nordic Countries or even Germany. In the U.S. there seems to be
huge distrust and fear, and people really seem to think that they have to arm themselves
against everybody else. This is the case in many developing countries as well,
be it Nigeria, some South and Central American countries, and also in present and
former socialist countries. An odd claim is that gun control belongs to
socialistic ideology; rather it should belong to Christian ideology.  Maybe social responsibility and true
acceptance of responsibility of fellow citizens has had too short time to
develop. Injustice and feeling of not being treated fairly creates bitterness
and aggressions. Although even perfect justice does not eliminate these
problems, it seems they can be lessened to a fraction. So would it not be
cheaper to prevent aggressions than to try to treat the problems by
constructing highly expensive prisons which the U.S. has constructed at world record
numbers. 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will
perish by the sword.' (Matthew 26:52)

superlogi
superlogi

I think a better question would be, why does the left want to dismantle the Bill of Rights, particularly those who call themselves journalists?  Frankly, the government scares me a great deal more than my fellow citizens and the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution are the "only" things keeping it in check.  The other pet peeve I have is the arguments by these leftist morons that suggest our fore fathers created the 2nd Amendment at a time when muskets and muzzle loaders were used to kill squirrels as if that was the reason it was created.  

mike.hughes
mike.hughes

Gee, let's see keep US citizens working and paying taxes or allow them to be drawing   unemployment once their employers are sued out of business by well meaning idiots.  Yep, one of the few time Congress did the right thing--protect jobs and the economy.  Adam goes to the bottom of the class.

MGD13
MGD13

Your comparison to the "lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank
fires" is absolutely ridiculous.  The reason that those lawsuits held
any merit is because the car did not act as it was designed and
advertised. Like it or not, a gun is designed to launch a metal bullet
accurately at high velocity. Suing the manufacturer when their product
achieved their design goals just doesn't make sense and opens up a can
of worms.  Should we sue a knife manufacturer when their products are
used in a stabbing? How about a pool company when somebody drowns in a
pool? How about a fertilizer manufacturer when their product is used to
make a bomb?
 

The point is that we need to stop worrying
about the suing the makers of tools and start addressing the real
underlying problems that this country faces. We need to reform for our
mental health laws and channel more of our taxpayer money to caring for
these patients.

scottinstl
scottinstl

We should have tort reform to protect all manufacturers.  The dumbocraps would never allow this because they are bought and paid for by the trial lawyers.

lakawak
lakawak

Mostly because of that pesky Constitution that the ultra lefties don't bother with.

Dan
Dan

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry even when it makes guns that are unnecessarily dangerous and sells them recklessly."

No it doesn't. The text of the PLCAA is easily available for anyone to read online. The PLCAA shields the gun industry from neither as anyone who can read 15 USC 7903 (5) can see.

Adam, you are either lying to your readers or you are grossly misinformed. Which is it?

Dan
Dan

@adamscohen

i agree 100%!

repeal the plcaa. we can use lawsuits as a tool to bankrupt all arms manufacturers, then we can disarm law enforcement and military. all violence will end because there will be no more guns.

GeraldFundy
GeraldFundy

The same reason congress always does what it does, they have been paid well! its the American way lol.

www.Global-Privacy.us

JakeRobertson
JakeRobertson

This is just silly; Congress isn't protecting gun manufacturers by protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits! They're doing their job! 

Congress is supposed to protect the 2nd amendment; they should also protect the people from frivolous law suits. Congress should have better protected businesses and the people when individuals started suing fast food companies for getting fat. Companies don't make people fat: over-eating does!

This idea that we need to scapegoat someone for the slaughter of the innocents in Connecticut, and the fact that gun manufacturers and gun owners are the easiest to scapegoat--this is so wrongheaded! This simply and succinctly illustrates so much of what is wrong with our society.


Guns didn't kill those children; one evil individual did--and he just happened to do it with a gun. If a gun hadn't been available, he would have found some other way to kill, some other means to accomplish a great slaughter. 

No guns were used in the bombing of the Twin Towers; no guns were used in Oklahoma City bombing. Great acts of evil don't require guns, and limiting the right of the people to wield weapons in their own defense will not do anything to subdue evil because evil is EVIL!!


I would suggest we organize a non-profit public awareness campaign to make people aware of the evils of evil, to try and figure out how to address the rampant evil that is threatening our schools, our families, our public safety, our national security--I WOULD suggest this, but a public entity of this sort would be redundant. 

We already have one: it's called religion.

tubarc
tubarc

I am a PhD scientist that got my degree at Penn State and by chance Bill Clinton was the speecher of my commencement.

What kind of people are you?
I have a scientific discovery as a breakthrough (US pat. 6,766,817) that cancels around 50,000 issued patents and open room for another 200,000 new ones. I am surprised now that USPTO is running a sort of REINVENTION policy that allows my advanced discovery deploying Hydrogeology to the fluidic devices suggesting new conceptions of Hydrodynamics.

My patents are being violated by flawed ones that even neither work nor respect common knowledge from old text books.

I got PhD in Soil Science. What is the chance that Roche employs any Geologist or Soil Scientist to understand fluids moving on porosity? So, they copied my patent and reinvented it again with collusion of USPTO. Well, Roche has around 70,000 employees and a yearly budget of $46 bn.

Their power to influence government and Lawmaker is bigger than reinventing a ‘scientific discovery’. Last year 18,650 Americans died of infections resistant to antibiotics. There is a LAW to protect business barring inspectors on footstock mills to collect and publish the amount of antibiotics that is being dumped to feedlots. Last year only 20% of all antibiotic consumed in the US was done on human need. I believe that more than half of the antibiotics produced by the pharmaceutical industry is being dumped to livestock feed in the US.

If Lawmakers and Pharmaceutical executives did not live in the US it would make sense dumping it to create ‘superbugs’ that is killing thousands of Americans with infections that there is no cure. Are those ‘superbugs’ engineered to infect only poor people in the US?

Now you learn that Lawmakers and another brand of executives are also dumping guns that kill your children. Do they have children?

Americans are becoming broken for spoiling the economy, obese for not understanding healthy lifestyles, sick for dumping antibiotics to livestock, and killing themselves by profiting on weapons and ignorance.

My science Hydrology is very strong and will get through but many victims like those children will be wasted because of a failing leadership and misunderstanding on the importance of simple HONESTY.

I advise you that the problem is deeper and more complex than you are assuming.

RedDawnRising
RedDawnRising

It's a great idea, a real live fire problem. A teacher, janitor, or rent a cop with a 9mm and 10 days training up against a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine fired by someone who has no expectation of living.........imagine the after action report

You can hunt and protect your home. Why an assult rifle....they aren't that practical in most homes. They're too long...corners, immediate shifts in direction.......not w/o a great deal of training.

The Second Ammendment of The US Constitution begins with " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". The people with assult rifles think they will make  a difference?????  You can use up 200 rounds in amatter of minutes-then what. If the bad guys get to your  street they will own the sky=drones, satelites, carpet bombing, gunships etc ( hoew about a Hellicat DRE). If the bad guys get to your street they will own the roads what can a AK47 or an M16 due to a T-60 tank  ( diapers may be in order when you see 12.7mm tracers hitting in the dirt in front of you).

Bc

JamesSmith
JamesSmith

They protect all interests that finance their campaigns. The gun industry is just one of the biggest ones. They'd support child rape and murder if a billionaire serial killer bankrolled them.

superlogi
superlogi

And, here, I thought they were protecting the law of the land?  It, certainly, can't be said of the Executive branch of government which not only doesn't enforce the laws it doesn't like, but breaks them on occasion.