Yes

It's not the gun that does the killing, it's the person that just so happens to use a gun that does the killing.

The firearms manufacturer is not liable for the unlawful use of a lawful and constitutionally protected tool. The question is should victims of gun, "violence" be able to sue, this is distinct from neglegent discharges or firing without the operators intent.

1. **Public Safety and Accountability**: Implementing gun liability measures can contribute to public safety by holding gun owners responsible for their firearms. This can help prevent incidents of accidental discharges, thefts, and illegal transfers.

2. **Reducing Gun Violence**: Research indicates that implementing gun liability laws can be effective in reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries. Studies have shown that states with stricter liability laws tend to have lower rates of gun deaths.

3. **Preventing Negligence and Irresponsible Behavior**: Gun liability measures can incentivize…  Read more responsible gun ownership by discouraging negligent storage, allowing guns to fall into the wrong hands. This can help prevent accidents, suicides, and acts of violence.

Victims of gun violence should be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers because they were the ones that allowed the killing machine to get in the wrong hands. lots of places don´t do the proper investigating to see if the person their selling it to should be allowed to have a gun.

Corrupt manufacturers and companies that create these weapons of violence should be sued if they are further used for the negativity of human life.

If someone gets murdered by a gun that was supplied by the government, access to the gun helps unlock the ability to kill the victim with the gun. The company should be forced to be punished for the distribution because they basically assisted the killer by suppling them.

Guns really shouldn't have existed in the past because it is now a big deal on everyone using a gun to attack instead of defend

opponents insist that it would actually do the opposite by preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against armed criminals.

If your child died while at school to a 14-year-old who had a fake id and bought a gun from your local cabelas, you would want to sue them, wouldn't you? people sue for a lot less these days.

In 2019 the Remington Arms Company was sued for 73 million dollars after a mass shooting occurred and the shooter used a Remington rifle, Remington stopped manufacturing weapons and in 2020 the Remington Arms Company filed for bankruptcy, thousands of peoples lives were taken by Remington products but because of the sue case that would happen no longer.

Gun violence can absolutely be reduced in this country through technology including better regulation and registration of whom guns are sold to. This will not happen without legal and civil liability towards gun manufacturers.

People can die from guns so when someone is injured by one they should be able to sue people for making them

there is way to many incidents having. police are trained to be handeling a gun and they have went to school and passed tests to have the right to have it. others think its just good to have.

Applying a liability risk upon firearm dealers is going to make it harder for them to be sold to just anybody, minimizing chances of an armed attacker to take innocent lives.

It is not ethical to punish someone for an action that they did not do. They have no completely reliable way to know if someone will commit a crime.

In Ohio, the requirements to purchase a firearm are: you have to be old enough (18 or 21 depending on the type of gun), you must prove that you live in Ohio, prove you don't have any disability that would prevent you from purchasing, not using, a gun, complete a questionnaire and background check. Nowhere in Ohio's regulations does it directly mention checking for mental illness, meaning that there is room for error in that area. Additionally, there is no waiting period from when you pay for your firearm to when you can have possession of that firearm, which means there is less time to run checks before the gun goes out of the store.

If your child died while at school to a 14 year old who had a fake id and bought a gun from your local cabelas, you would want to sue them wouldn't you. people sue for a lot less these day.

While holding them accountable for negligence is helpful, it is only a temporary fix. It scolds the companies without actually creating meaningful change. However, if they are punished or sanctioned for the neglectful laws they already have in place will provide this change.

My younger cousins go to the Covenant school in Nashville TN that experienced the lethal shooting in 2023. My family could've died that day, and 6 of their friends did. It happens everywhere, to anyone, and the only way to ensure protection against it is to make sure people who don't need to have guns, don't have access to them, whether through legal methods of purchase, or easily obtaining them from family, etc.

If guns weren't so easily accessible then half the school shootings wouldnt have taken place. This isnt an opinion this is a fact.

Why? How should they know that they were making and selling guns to those who cause mass shootings? It's not their fault; they made and sold the weapon and didn't decide to take the shoot.

Gun violence can absolutely be reduced in this country through technology including better regulation and registration of whom guns are sold to. This will not happen without legal and civil liability towards gun manufacturers.

Gun manufacturers earn extraordinary profits on their products and they should have to pay when their products cause bodily harm or injury to anyone.

I think victims of gun violence should be able to sue firearm dealers because if a firearm dealer sold an assault rifle to a mentally ill person, that person has hurt and scarred the victim for the rest of their lives.

My best counter argument to the Yes position on Gun Liability is that owners will feel safer with a weapon.