In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The law protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. The law was passed in response to a series of lawsuits filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s which claimed gun-makers and sellers were not doing enough to prevent crimes committed with their products. Proponents of the law argue that lawsuits will discourage gun manufacturers from supplying stores who sell guns that end up being used in violent crimes. Opponents argue that gun manufacturers are not responsible for random acts of violence committed with their products.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Gun Liability
@95NCSPK3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if it can be proven that they practice or promote methods of selling firearms that could be considered negligent
@957XW9PRepublican3yrs3Y
It's not the gun manufacturers or sellers fault. It's that person behind the gun's fault.
@94X5BQL3yrs3Y
No its not the manufacturers fault the person had ill intentions
@8PCJT3L5yrs5Y
No, it is not the manufacturers fault for the actions of another person.
@8N7KHXN5yrs5Y
No, because everyone is their own person. manufacturers and dealers have no control over what the person decides to do with the gun.
@978X4N23yrs3Y
No because the dealers didn't commit gun violence.
@972XVRH3yrs3Y
No because they just made the weapon not shot it
@96C76T43yrs3Y
Yes but only if obtained through a third party dealer
@962FGWJ3yrs3Y
No, that was not the intended use of the firearm.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
