In San Francisco the California Supreme court is considering a landmark gun liability case. The landmark case is whether to hold gun makers responsible for harm their products cause. The court has heard and watched negligence lawsuits against the manufacturer of a semiautomatic assault weapon that was used in the killing and wounding of 14 people during a rampage in a San Francisco high-rise in 1993. The courts decision on whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed will also help with other lawsuits pending in many other places around California. Gun makers fear that a loss in this case could make them vulnerable as the tobacco industry in lawsuits by victims. Some of the justices search for a way to hold the gun makers somewhat responsible. They are saying that the negligently promoted and sold the weapon, moreover it would also have to find that the negligence caused the mayhem. The 1st District Court of Appeal decided in September 1999 the lawsuit should be upheld because they had reason to believe that they "had substantial reason to foresee that many of those whom it made the TEC-DC9 available would criminally misuse it to kill and injure others." They said they deli

As a business your job is to put out the best and most desirable product you can possibly think of. What these gun makers do is no different from what other companies do. What is unethical about what the courts are doing to these gun makers is not right. They are putting the blame onto them and saying there the reason why these people where killed. The families of the victims are the same way, saying that if the manufacturers wouldn't have put these guns out they wouldn't have a family member who was killed. Which is true, but at the same time one has to realize that the gun makers don't have the last say on if their guns are legal. The higher ups in America have the last say so on whether the guns should be sold to the public. So if the families would like to blame anybody it should be America and not the gun manufacturers. Is what they're trying to say that the advertising leads a person to commit an unlawful act? At the same time the gun manufacturers should be the ones making sure they don't put out ads that may suggest violence, that there is very unethical and unprofessional.

On of the things I find unethical about this whole thing is that the CDC should have stuck with these officers though thick and thin. They let the workers out by themselves when they withdrew their lawyers from helping them. This is supposed to be the county that is innocent until proven guilty. Not in this case. They need to be shown support from CDC rather then be pushed away. Moreover, if the officers allowed this rape to happen they need to question their way of working. They are the ones who should be watching and protecting the inmates not allowing these type of things to happen. If this is true they need to check their profession and see about following their job guidelines a little better. They are there to protect and serve, rather than just do there work and work 9-5.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Manual DOM, Defense Fund, Court Appeal, America Instead, Government Code, Eddie Dillard, California Supreme, California Gun, Level IV, San Francisco, gun makers, provide defense, thinking job jeopardy, pelican bay, district court, correctional officer, defense corcoran, hold gun, defend officers, gun manufacturers, hold gun makers, provide defense corcoran, putting blame,
Approximate Word count = 1809
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)