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
@9TJ5TJK8mos8MO
they shouldn't sue the people that handed the person responsible for the shooting unless the person with the gun said something and the dealer still gave it to them.
@9KPNH5G1yr1Y
I don’t think they should sue firearm dealers or manufacturers because it wasn’t their fault that an incident occurred. I think the suspect should be charged/ arrested.
@9HN9P9D1yr1Y
yes and no because its not the dealers and manufacturers fault there was a shooting but they should also check IDs and start doing background checks or something like that
@9GH5NXTIndependence2yrs2Y
Manufacturers and dealers have no bearing on what is done with a gun, that is why a majority people who commit gun crime, either have a stolen firearm, or, got one illegally.
@9FBSQH42yrs2Y
If the dealer was found to have done no background checks, or the mandatory waiting period, then yes, they should sue.
@9FBL2XS2yrs2Y
No because it is technically just the person who bought the weapons fault for using it inappropriately and not for defensive purposes.
@9DM75B7 2yrs2Y
Should be able to sue the government for poorly regulating gun use
@99TPGY52yrs2Y
No, gun manufacturers should not be held accountable unless it was their mistake allowing a non-eligible customer to purchase and take home a gun.
@99TN7XL2yrs2Y
Yes, gun dealers and manufacturers should be both held liable for negligence and should be allowed to be sued if serious injuries occurred.
@96QG5YR3yrs3Y
No. A firearm is an object that just about anyone can purchase. It is harmless and useless until someone picks it up and uses it for recreation, crime, or self defense. The manufacturer of guns produce them for people to use legally and responsibly.
@93TJBXC3yrs3Y
The user should be held accountable not the dealer unless he or she knows its purpose for purchase
@8X8YBB44yrs4Y
Firearms dealers and manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of others so they are not responsible for what someone uses a gun for.
@8WPCR9N4yrs4Y
Depends on the worker and how did they sell the firearm. Did they check all background information, etc.
@8W68Y2Q4yrs4Y
Yes, only if the firearms dealer didn't take the proper legal steps.
@8W36LXD4yrs4Y
yes but only the dealers
only if the manufacturers dont do the correct back ground checks. and if its a avoidable situation then then they should be held accountable
No, because its not the dealer or manufactures fault someone used a gun for gun violence
@8V3VW464yrs4Y
As long as the dealer completes a full background check on the buyer before selling they should be ok. The dealer should not be sued because they can't decide what the buyer does with the gun.
@8SJ5HFR4yrs4Y
No, the gun holders should be held responsible.
@8S32YP24yrs4Y
Yes they should be able to sue because some bushiness don't require permits or licenses.
@8PFD6S25yrs5Y
How does one control actions of others
@8LGJW5DWomen’s Equality5yrs5Y
Yes, only if the dealer knew they shouldn't be selling or the dealer had suspicions of the person buying and ignored it
@8JTH4PR5yrs5Y
depends if the the gun business follow in selling a gun to a person who passes the background and mental health psyh check policies.
I honestly do not know. I have no knowledge in this.
@8DZSPLP5yrs5Y
It isn’t the weapon in and of itself that caused the damage, it was the individual behind it. Just in the same way, that individual could have used a knife, hammer, or bomb.
@8DZ4ZJM5yrs5Y
Yes, if said transaction was held illegally
@8CC3BP95yrs5Y
Victims should be able to hold the dealer accountable for their irresponsible trade with the other person.
@8C9HF5S5yrs5Y
No, the manufacturers and deals are not apart of the event.
@8C8Q9NK5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if evidence exists that dealers did not conduct proper background checks.
yes, but only if they sold the gun illegally
@98XLP95Republican2yrs2Y
No, manufacturers and Legally Licensed dealers shouldn't be punished because they can't know what the customers intentions are for purchasing the firearm.
@984697J2yrs2Y
they should sue who did the crime
@9783QXT3yrs3Y
yes, but only if the person had a criminal history with guns and they still sold the a gun
@977YGVB3yrs3Y
no. its the person that hurt you NOT THE GUN. if you put a gun on a table and tell it to kill someone, IT WONT DO ANYTHING. its a tool used for sports. sometimes used in out military/police force.
@977JHHV3yrs3Y
Should only be responsible if the child is under the age of 21
@8ZXWCJGProgressive3yrs3Y
yes, if the company was guilty of not going through the proper requirements required to sell a gun to someone.
@8SJPQMT4yrs4Y
No, the gun holder should be sued.
@8KW22LY5yrs5Y
Its a yes and no. They are responsible in a way but also not.
@8JGQDLQ5yrs5Y
However it goes, and does it.
@8DPLK625yrs5Y
yes if when the weapon was purchased without a well done background check.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
