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:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Gun Liability
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9FVGK4N 2yrs2Y
If doctors and pharmaceutical companies can be held liable for deaths as a result of malpractice or issues with drugs why can't firearms manufacturers and dealers be held liable for the guns they produce and sell?
@6WP5FSYRepublican 1yr1Y
Because doctors are responsible for how their drugs are used, as the people using them, and pharmaceutical companies are responsible for how the drugs are made. They also share responsibility as long as the customer follows normal use.
A gun manufacturer has no relation to the criminal, nor is the gun being used in an intended manner. Therefore they have no responsibility.
@9FVJ3862yrs2Y
They should because they didn't do a good enough wellness check to see if the person they were giving a harmful device was mentally capable enough to wield such power.
@6WP5FSYRepublican 1yr1Y
“hey should because they didn't do a good enough wellness check t”
Manufacturers don't distribute firearms to customers nor do they perform wellness checks.
@9G2BGZ4 2yrs2Y
Top Agreement
How would it make sense for the dealer to be in trouble when he's just doing his job, if he sold it to them illegally, then i can see why he would be held liable
@9G2CKL62yrs2Y
If he sold it illegally then he's an idiot and should be punished, but if it was legal then it's no longer his problem.
@9FZDKXN2yrs2Y
I say they should add more restrictions to people that want to own a gun. And to the the people that sell guns illegal they should be sent to jail.
@9FZMDPD2yrs2Y
If there are more restrictions on gun ownership and purchase, then there is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, which is one of our unalienable rights.
@9FZMVFT2yrs2Y
Its not fair to put restrictions on people that want to own a gun because other bad people had to ruin for the rest of the people.
@9S8MS8CRepublican 9mos9MO
their is not much they can do they already are required to not sell to felons and they have to do background check and they arnt allowed to sell to mentally ill what else can they do there isnt much else they can do
@9GKGKQ2 2yrs2Y
I do not have statistics memorized off-hand, so all I will say is that if firearms manufacturers are to be held accountable for their client's actions with their products, that liability implies that there must be some way for said firearms manufacturers to reasonably prevent their clients from making poor decisions with their products. This, however, is not within their capability or their responsibility; they are MANUFACTURERS, their job is to make the products, distribute the products, and sell them.
@9GKQ8KB2yrs2Y
Correct, and it's not guns that kill, it's people. And people are hard to control regardless of their means to evil.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Yes, but get the guns out of the wrong people's hands, regulate the use of those guns, ban some of them, and keeping tight security on their distribution will most definitely make that easier to prevent. We're the actual producers of these guns, so a universal common-sense amendment to have laws in place against it WILL help the issue.
@9GKQ3VK2yrs2Y
The Manufacturers are not responsible for any threat or action made by the clients. It is impossible to say they have something to do with violence committed by the clients. Once the gun is registered to its owner, it is the owner's responsibility to keep it in safe hands and use it effectively for self-defense. They have no access to the minds of the clients, nor do they have control of whoever the firearms are being sold to. I will say however that guns should not be produced in the first place, but in the world we live in, we need guns to protect ourselves.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes
@9FBSZQD 2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
If someone misuses a vehicle in a malicious way to harm others, the vehicle manufacturer isn’t held liable, so why should a firearms manufacturer be held liable?
@9FF2Q9G2yrs2Y
Car manufacturers don't just give the public the fanciest or dangerous cars, they are reserved. Gun manufacturers should not be creating assault grade weapons for the public.
@6WP5FSYRepublican 1yr1Y
“Gun manufacturers should not be creating assault grade weapons for the public.”
They don't make assault grade weapons for the public. No modern developed military is using a semi-automatic weapon.
@9R85CJ310mos10MO
There are still tens of thousands of deaths due to car accidents a year. I don't think that is the fault of the manufacturer.
@9GKKKN22yrs2Y
as per the 2nd amendment, giving me the right to a well regulated militia in the case of fighting for free state, and the right to bear and keep arms, i am 100% entitled to owning a assault grade weapon. If i fall off of a ladder and break my back, i have no right to sue the ladder company. On the other side, if a gun goes off with no fault of the owner, then i can see a lawsuit. People like you are a cancer to our free society, you do no research and make irrational, emotional, and baseless claims. If you took 2 seconds and did a quick google search, you will find that said weapons make up… Read more
@9FF2HC3Libertarian2yrs2Y
yes this is a great analogy to describe this issue. people can kill others with a car just as easily as they can with a gun.
@9MW8XLM12mos12MO
Whether they are held liable or not would be up to a court to decide bc whether it's a firearm, a car, etc its literally in the 1st amendment that we have a constitutional right to "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now it's up to the courts and the lawyers and what not to decide if it's a legit case or not
@9FBJWSD2yrs2Y
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.
@9FBR76W2yrs2Y
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.
@9FSQ8TR2yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence
@9FBR76W2yrs2Y
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.
@9F86MMC2yrs2Y
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.
@9GLSKJN2yrs2Y
They should be held responsible for the actions of their customers because they are the ones who determine who they sell to.
@9GMDBSY2yrs2Y
They should be held responsible for the actions of their customers because they are the ones who determine who they sell to.
@9T5Z56Y8mos8MO
No they don't. Do you buy a car from the manufacturer? No. You go to a car dealership. This policy makes no sense and I can't understand how ANY of the politicians are voting for it, let alone nearly all of them. Is everybody that disconnected from reality or just misinterpreting the question? If the question was "Can firearm dealers be held responsible?" Then there is a question worthy of debate but making the manufacturers responsible is lunacy.
@Jem1yr1Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, any business should be held liable if the primary use of its product is for illegal activity
@9GCBBFR 2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
Would you blame a car dealership for someone going on a vehicular rampage and killing dozens? Instead of going after where the cars were made/sold, you would hold the maniac driving the car responsible.
It is almost like blaming the victims of a shooting because they “upset the gunman”. Always hold the individual responsible, no one else is holding the gun and pulling the trigger.
@9GCFZBXIndependent2yrs2Y
Agree; individuals should be penalized for the choices they make. It is not the responsibility of the gun manufacturer if someone unjustly takes a life with a firearm they produce.
@SereneRightWingGreen2yrs2Y
automobile manufacturers are held accountable for safety mechanisms in their cars. If a car's brakes fail due to a manufacturing defect and cause an accident, the manufacturer can be held liable.
In the same vein, should gun manufacturers not also have a responsibility to incorporate safety measures or checks that could potentially prevent a firearm from being misused, especially given the higher risk associated with these products?
@6WP5FSYRepublican 1yr1Y
“In the same vein, should gun manufacturers not also have a responsibility to incorporate safety measures or checks that could potentially prevent a firearm from being misused, especially given the higher risk associated with these products?”
The only way this counterargument makes sense is if the shooting was accidental due to a flaw in the firearms design. Mass shootings are committed by mass shooters intent on committing murder. There is no way for the manufacturer to know the shooter would have gotten their hands on the gun thus there is no legal liability.
@9FVGK4N 2yrs2Y
A gun's primary purpose is supposedly for hunting according to gun advocates, so if is not being used for that purpose then gun manufacturers should be held liable for their misuse to make sure they have a stake in how their products are being used.
@9FWJFVP2yrs2Y
Guns are also essential for self-defense and making criminals fear innocent civilians. Banning such weapons would cause criminals to be emboldened.
@9FX4H3R2yrs2Y
A car is not intended to be driven while intoxicated, so if driven by a drunk driver, auto manufacturers should be held liable for misuse to make sure they have a stake in how their products are being used... Ridiculous, right? A gun actually has 2 primary purposes- protection and hunting. If misused, it's the fault of the person who misuses it, not the gun manufacturer. Just like Ford isn't liable for someone who kills with a car, gun manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of criminals or people who irresponsibly handle a weapon.
@9FWHY352yrs2Y
If someone is going to buy a gun and hurt someone, they will always find a way. We should be focusing more on the mental health of the community that could lead to this type of action.
@9FVGK4N 2yrs2Y
Yet those who support guns and use that excuse don't want to fund mental healthcare, so you can't have it both ways.
@9WXY7XC6mos6MO
What you need to understand is people are not supporting the misuse of guns, we are supporting guns for hunting and self-protection. There are many different uses of guns. There are right ways, and wrong ways just like everything has good ways and bad ways to use them. That's like saying, " The washer machine is bad because someone got locked in and died. " Like, No, It was used in the wrong way. There are many ways to use things. People just have to know how to use it correctly.
@6WP5FSYRepublican1yr1Y
You don't speak for everyone in a movement you're not even part of.
@9FWJ3H92yrs2Y
Companies that sell knives, axes, baseball bats, and hammers aren’t sued when someone uses them to hurt someone else.
Deleted2yrs2Y
This agreement can be made about any product used in an illegally way. Its like saying that you should be able to sue Ford if someone uses one of their vehicles in a drunk driving incident.
@9GG2P7MLibertarian2yrs2Y
It would be illogical to sue the company who made the product because someone used it in a way the manufacturer did not intend. Many things from a dog bone to a HDMI cable can be used in illegal and dangerous ways, but no one would want to then sue the company who made them because someone used their product in a way they did not intend their product to be used. The same logic would apply to firearm manufacturers.
@6WP5FSYRepublican1yr1Y
Firearm manufactures do not intend their firearms to be used in mass shootings. If they make military weapons they intend it to be used by military organizations. If they make civilian weapons they intend them to be used on shooting ranges, collections, or for hunting.
@9TYJFHK8mos8MO
I understand your point, but you also forgot self-defense and its adjacents (home defense, defense of family, professional security guards, etc).
@9WXY7XC6mos6MO
Yes, this is so true! Like, they don't have to sit down with you and have a full-on conversation on how people are going to use the gun! It's not their fault that their product was used in the wrong way! Like, They were not a part and helping the person doing the crime. All they want to do is be able to sell their products and to be able to provide food on the table for their loved ones.
@9H3TJNQRepublican 1yr1Y
93 percent of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. It would not be the manufactures or stores fault it is criminals fault.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, but only dealers
@9GKGKQ2 2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
I would actually somewhat agree with this answer, but only to a certain extent. Dealers do have the responsibility of conducting background checks on the persons to whom they sell firearms, but there is no reasonable expectation that they can gain complete insight into the mind and mental state of their clients. As far as I am concerned, the dealer should only be liable to be sued if they either did not properly comply with background check laws/guidelines or if there is substantial evidence to show that the client (who used the guns to cause violence) was acting in a way that can be deemed suspicious, but the dealer did not take action or deny the sale.
@9GKJQCJ 2yrs2Y
When it comes to guns they're should be a new age restriction, so instead of 18 it's raised to 23 but you'll need a license and if you use your gun for bad your license gets revoked. And an inspector should come around once a month to make sure your using it carefully.
@9GKJDNCRepublican2yrs2Y
I agree But The Dealership is responsibile for background checks but they dont know what the buyer will do with it
@9FRKJ222yrs2Y
Dealers can't be held responsible, it would be a double standard. For example, car companies can't be responsible for car crashes that are not their fault.
@9GN6P752yrs2Y
I feel that the dealer is not at fault if a thorough background search was completed and results were positive.
@9GJ3LJ6Independent2yrs2Y
No, People should not be allowed to sue the gun dealers for gun violence. That is like saying you should be able to sue car manufacturers and car dealers for hit and runs, and fatal car crashes.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as the losing party pays all legal fees, it’s our constitutional right to sue anyone for any reason
@9FLM7P72yrs2Y
No, the firearm dealers and manufacturers are not responsible for the people who have used firearms to commit crimes.
@9FL72T92yrs2Y
You sue the person who used the gun, not the person who made it, as the person who made the gun also made guns to help prevent criminal action.
@9FLPP5W2yrs2Y
You have the right to sue but why sue the seller they have no control of what the person they sell to do with the gun.
@B4G6SL71mo1MO
yes you can use anyone but there might not be enough evidence to tie weapon manufacturers to people committing illegal act with these weapons.
@3WZMZGC5yrs5Y
Absolutely not. This is asinine and comparable to suing a hammer maker because you smashed your thumb. Even if someone smashed someone elses thumb, on purpose. It is not the fault of the tool maker. It is the responsibility of each person to handle those tools appropriately. Decisions come with consequences. Use a tool for harm, and that person should deal with those consequences, not a company who made it.
Firearms dealers should only be dealt with legally if they sold someone a gun without going through the proper process.
@8TR6R8W4yrs4Y
Well said, suing a gun manufacturer for gun violence is like someone blaming a fork for them being obese.
I think that the people who make the guns should not be responsible unless if their products cause a huge number of problems worldwide.
@8LYHYV45yrs5Y
Depending on if the firearm user is the one being injured, say you purchased a faulty firearm and attempted to fire it and it backfires on you, hurting your arm, then you should be able to fault the manufacturer or dealer, but only in that scenario.
@8QPRM644yrs4Y
@3WX5M4F5yrs5Y
Yes, the constitution gives us the right to sue for any reason. It does not mean that the case should win in court but I would not prevent any one from suing for any reason.
@585VTVH5yrs5Y
NO. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If we start suing legally acting gun manufacturers and dealers, then we should also start suing knife makers and car makers, because people are routinely killed by those items also. Let's get reasonable, people; reserve your lawsuits for the entities who actually deserve them: the people who committed the violent act in the first place.
@97N5QVV2yrs2Y
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But guns make it easier for people to kill people. Still, I agree. Manufacturers should never be held responsible, because they are following the law and doing everything correctly. If someone didn’t want guns to be sold in a certain way, they should change the legislation. It makes no sense to punish the person who made them.
@8MN8DQ95yrs5Y
No, unless they had a true influence over the violence.
@97SCG642yrs2Y
For crimes involving assault rifles only
@9DGLJLM2yrs2Y
No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable when they break the law, not when others break the law with their products. For instance, if someone overdoses, the pharmaceutical company shouldn't be liable.
@9F3WMF22yrs2Y
No, manufacturers are not liable.
@3WYQ5QX5yrs5Y
No, but original owners should have some stake in allowing their firearm to go missing
@3WZDVG75yrs5Y
Gun owners should be required to carry insurance for each weapon that they own to cover the liability resulting from loss of life or serious injury.
@9D6CVHNRepublican2yrs2Y
I feel that if someone is a victim of gun violence then they should sue the person or subject who which made them a victim. It was their choice to fire the gun towards someone indangering them. Not the dealers and manufactures.
@ThirdPartyDennyGreen2yrs2Y
I see where you're coming from, holding individuals accountable for their actions is crucial. However, consider a scenario where a gun manufacturer is aware that their product is frequently bought illegally and used in crimes, yet they continue to distribute it through those channels for profit. In such a case, could they not be seen as indirectly contributing to the violence? What are your thoughts on this?
@3WKBWWQ5yrs5Y
No, the business that sold the firearm and manufacturer that produced the firearm did not use the firearm to harm the victim. The victim cannot hold the manufacturer accountable for the actions of a customer. That would be like a homeowner holding their contractor accountable for their child tripping down the stairs. It's ridiculous and wouldn't happen.
No, but gun violence victims should be allowed to sue the NRA for blocking enforcement of our gun laws.
@9D694HR2yrs2Y
victims of gun violence should sue the person who shot them and not the dealer
@9GVLHLN1yr1Y
No. Should a hammer manufacturer be sued because someone used a name brand hammer their company produces as a weapon? Once the item is manufactured to specs and sold, it is no longer in the companies control, but in the control of the consumer, therefore should not be held liable.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
There's clearly a difference between a company that produces and sells tools where one gets used as a weapon, compared to a company that literally just produces and sells weapons. We shouldn't be surprised that so many mass murders are happening with the products designed to be able to mass murder by companies who make millions cranking out the mass murder products...
@3WL4RVB5yrs5Y
No, firearms manufacturers have NO control over how gun owners use firearm - and should not be held liable for things outside of their control. (Just like a car manufacturer cannot stop those who buy their cars from driving drunk.)
Gun dealers should only be held liable if they illegally sell a firearm to someone who uses that firearm to commit a crime.
@8C4RX5V5yrs5Y
No, because the company did not know that the people they where selling to would use their guns inappropriately.
@8D7CM8W5yrs5Y
No, abolish all gun laws.
@8G498H3Libertarian5yrs5Y
If they can prove the company was negligent with who they sold weapons to.
@8TJKDF44yrs4Y
Manufacturers transfer firearms to purchasers via an FFL (federally licensed firearm dealer) - the transfer process requires a background check via the NICS system - so why would the manufacturer be responsible when they are removed from the transfer process?
@8C9YRBF5yrs5Y
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
