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.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9FVGK4N 7mos7MO
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?
@9FVJ3867mos7MO
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 5mos5MO
“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.
@6WP5FSYRepublican 5mos5MO
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.
@9G2BGZ4 6mos6MO
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
@9G2CKL66mos6MO
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.
@9FZDKXN6mos6MO
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.
@9FZMDPD6mos6MO
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.
@9FZMVFT6mos6MO
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.
@9F8MXB47mos7MO
With the right training and handling a gun will never become a dangerous entity. It’s when you put it in the hands of someone with the wrong intents that it becomes dangerous.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@9FBSZQD 7mos7MO
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?
@9FF2Q9G7mos7MO
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 5mos5MO
“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.
@9GKKKN26mos6MO
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
@9FF2HC3Libertarian7mos7MO
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.
@9FBJWSD7mos7MO
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.
@9FBR76W7mos7MO
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.
@9GHX26Y6mos6MO
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
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence
@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.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, any business should be held liable if the primary use of its product is for illegal activity
@9GCBBFR 6mos6MO
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.
@9GCFZBXIndependent6mos6MO
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.
@SereneRightWingGreen6mos6MO
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 5mos5MO
“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 7mos7MO
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.
@9FX4H3R7mos7MO
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.
@9FWHY357mos7MO
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.
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
@9FVGK4N 7mos7MO
Yet those who support guns and use that excuse don't want to fund mental healthcare, so you can't have it both ways.
@6WP5FSYRepublican5mos5MO
You don't speak for everyone in a movement you're not even part of.
@9FWJ3H97mos7MO
Companies that sell knives, axes, baseball bats, and hammers aren’t sued when someone uses them to hurt someone else.
@99CR3PTRepublican6mos6MO
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.
@9GG2P7MLibertarian6mos6MO
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.
@6WP5FSYRepublican5mos5MO
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.
@9H3TJNQRepublican 5mos5MO
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, as long as the losing party pays all legal fees, it’s our constitutional right to sue anyone for any reason
@9FLM7P77mos7MO
No, the firearm dealers and manufacturers are not responsible for the people who have used firearms to commit crimes.
@9FL72T97mos7MO
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.
@9FLPP5W7mos7MO
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.
@9FLJYZT7mos7MO
unless it is a major company then a proven person would need a sponsor in case their case is lost so that is why they can pay the legal fees.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
