@9FBR76W7mos7MO
I don't have much to say about this, as if a dealer or manufacturer makes a mistake obviously then they would be held liable. Just because someone abuses a manufacturers firearm doesn't mean that its the manufacturer or dealers fault.
@9F86MMC7mos7MO
The manufacturer simply makes and sells firearms, its up to the person who buys it to decide what they do with it good or bad.
@9G3LTQG6mos6MO
I don't have much to say about this, as if a dealer or manufacturer makes a mistake obviously then they would be held liable. Just because someone abuses a manufacturers firearm doesn't mean that its the manufacturer or dealers fault.
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
If it works, it works.
If a gun works as designed, the manufacturer should be cleared.
If a gun is sold to a valid applicant, the dealer should be cleared
If a gun is sold to a criminal and misfires, both should be held liable.
@Jem5mos5MO
It is not the manufacturer's fault that the product like a gun was used illegally. Therefore it is not their fault and the person that did the illegal action should be held accountable. I also think that the government should be stricter about who they give a gun meaning they do an extreme background check before letting anyone have a gun.
@9GVLDWT5mos5MO
It wouldn't make since to blame someone for selling weapons that are completely legal. The companies don't control what people do.
@9FVW4ZN6mos6MO
because nobody knows the backround of anyone when someone is trying to tell a gun to someone they dont know what plans they have with it.
@9FTX2XW6mos6MO
While there is a level of responsibility to tall into the manufacturers and dealers there us just as much if not more of a responsibility for the actions.
@9FTJGQ56mos6MO
Without a legal incentive, gun manufacturers will not develop better safety technologies for guns. Shifting liability solely to the gun owner does not create this incentive.
@9FMWTNS6mos6MO
I can respect this position, but manufacturers are less likely to know who exactly is buying their guns aside from other dealers.
@9FL7TS3Independent6mos6MO
While negligence might be the worst product of the manufacturer's position on gun liability, it would be more beneficial to have accountability based on pre-standing laws and regulations that allow this negligence.
@9K9XVJY 1mo1MO
"If Honda produces a faulty vehicle, those adversely affected should have the right to pursue legal action against the company. Similarly, if a gun manufacturer produces a firearm that inadvertently harms someone due to a malfunction, holding that manufacturer accountable through legal recourse is justifiable."
@B.W.-Byars 1mo1MO
First off, the heart of the matter lies with the countless responsible gun owners across the U.S. Picture this: millions of Americans from all walks of life, engaging in shooting sports, hunting, and safeguarding their homes, all without a single misstep into criminality. The National Shooting Sports Foundation shines a light on this majority, showcasing the depth of lawful firearm use. Even more telling is the CDC's acknowledgment that firearms serve as a defensive tool in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of instances annually. This isn't just about guns; it's about ind… Read more
@9H5GKQDWomen’s Equality4mos4MO
There just needs to be much more thorough background and psychiatric checks with both the manufacturers/sales people and the customers.
@9FVGK4N 6mos6MO
How do you determine negligence? If something is used for a nefarious purpose shouldn't the manufacturers, and especially dealers, be held liable for their negligence in not seeing the warning signs?
@9FSQ8TR6mos6MO
The best counter-argument is that the gun companies don't know if a person is going to commit crimes with the gun they supply, so they don't deserve to get punished for something they could not possibly know would happen.
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...