@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 7mos7MO
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
@9G2CKL67mos7MO
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.
@9FZDKXN7mos7MO
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.
@9FZMDPD7mos7MO
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.
@9FZMVFT7mos7MO
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.
@9GDZPMB6mos6MO
How many guns do you see on a daily? I rarely see any ever, it's called concelled carry. You don't see someone shooting someone else for no reason, now muggings and robberys are examples on why we shouldn't have guns but at the same what are you going to do when 2 men break into your house and have your kids held at gun point and you couldn't do anything. Guns are going to be accesable to criminals no matter what, their mind movement does not change, we might as well keep it safe by letting an average American with a family that they care about get a gun for protection.
@9GKGKQ2 6mos6MO
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.
@9GKQ8KB6mos6MO
Correct, and it's not guns that kill, it's people. And people are hard to control regardless of their means to evil.
@9CJ6CB66mos6MO
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.
@9GKQ3VK6mos6MO
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.
@9GLCKRC6mos6MO
It is a shooters decision to go shoot at people, not the person who sold the gun, only the person who pulled the trigger.
@9F8WYQ9Peace and Freedom7mos7MO
the firearms dealer is not responsible at all for the gun itself, only the person who used wonfully, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
@9GMJPD66mos6MO
Gun violence victims should be able to sue the dealer or buyer of the weapon rather than the manufacturer.
@9F9H5TQ7mos7MO
Some poeple are just bad people and will do bad things. It is not a businesses fault it a weapon get in their hands.
@9GMBDJC6mos6MO
I think that in order to carry weapons they should go through several tests and be at least 21 years old and be tested to see if they are not crazy.
@9GYWVLR 5mos5MO
perhaps distributers could be held accountable if they willingly arm criminal or otherwise malevolent agents, but certainly not manufacturers, unless the firearm is in someway faulty then the manufacturer has done a good job.
@9H274PX5mos5MO
No that's stupid the man that sold the gun probably didn't know it was going to end up in the arms of a criminal considering the background checks that are done when a firearm is bought. Its not the distributors fault.
@9GGRWP66mos6MO
If a product can be used for illegal activity, then the seller of the product should take more care and consideration of who they sell it to. When a seller makes the choice to sell a product that can be used for illegal activity, they are making a conscious decision to sell an item that they know the buyer might use illegal activity. It is on the seller for making that choice to put that product out in the world.
@9FN9VQKRepublican7mos7MO
Ask yourself this, do you blame manufacturers/sellers of alcohol for people drinking to excess and then driving? No. The person is to blame for their choices in misuse. Let's stop laying blame with everyone except ourselves. An individual is responsible for their own behaviors.
@9GW9M5B5mos5MO
a gun cannot shoot people without a person to pull the trigger. guns dont kill people, people kill people.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
...with guns, yea, that's why they're bad and should be regulated in public
@9FNXDD97mos7MO
Someone can buy a gun and can have completely different intentions of the last consumer, that's not the company's fault at all.
@9FBJS8HIndependent7mos7MO
It is simply that a producer of an item cannot be liable for what others choose to do with that item.
@9GS3G2PIndependent6mos6MO
Guns also are used for other things like sports and hunting, and not always used for harm or malicious behavior.
@9F8KRQJConstitution7mos7MO
No. You need to provide evidence for why we should do this. You can't come up with a crazy idea and then declare that if nobody is willing to go out of their way to prove you wrong, then you're automatically right.
Right or wrong the current state of affairs is the status quo and any proposal, especially for sweeping changes, better be extremely well research (and well presented)
@9H4C5MW5mos5MO
The manufacturers best intentions is to provide weapons to those who need it for recreational use and most importantly, self defense by giving said weapons to legal dealers for sale for said purpose. Illegal vendors will not want to get involved in legal battles therefore they will hide from legal authority.
@9GKBDMX6mos6MO
Car manufacturers are not responsible for drunk driving or wrecks, and food manufacturers are not responsible for diabetes or obesity
@9GHXMB46mos6MO
The manufacturers and arms dealers aren't the ones who caused harm to another human being by selling a weapon of self defence.
@9FRW4ZN7mos7MO
people should have the right to bear arms, its apart of the bill of rights. to be able to protect yourself isnt a bad thing. yes a lot of people use it for bad things as well, but its used for a good cause more than it is bad.
@9FZFGC27mos7MO
If we prohibit victims of gun violence from suing firearms dealers and manufacturers, then that means we’re providing a special immunity to firearms dealers and manufacturers that we do not provide to dealers and manufacturers of other items. Why should gun manufacturers and distributors or dealers receive this special immunity? Medications and medical equipment like pacemakers save lives — as in, that’s literally their purpose for existing — and yet we do not grant THEIR dealers and manufacturers immunity from suits. Again: why should firearm manufacturers and dealers… Read more
@9G6M7K86mos6MO
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?
@9G54V3Y6mos6MO
It should be required that those who have access to guns should also be required for fingerprints, licensing, and training to approve their intelligence. It would be our faults if allowing those to carry weapons of destruction in their everyday life.
@9FSQ8TR7mos7MO
My argument is that guns lead to many crimes and deaths of innocent people. The distribution of firearms and the accessibility of them leads to many mentally ill and evil people using the guns for bad and to commit crimes.
@9G7S4VT6mos6MO
Gun is a weapon of destruction, therefore, if you make it for that purpose you should be liable for the consequences of your product.
@9FZ5SF97mos7MO
Because people doesn't know how to control themselves and they shooting innocent people because they're doing their job. For example, a person was doing their job in a game place but he didn't let a person go in because he was wearing a mask in his face and the employee couldn't recognize the person and he ask nicely to remove the mask and the guy got mad and shot him. We should not have a law letting 18 years old people buy guns.
@9FXHV577mos7MO
It should be required that those who have access to guns should also be rewuired for finger prints, licensing, and training to approve their intelligence. It would be our faults if allowing those to carry weapons of distruction in their everyday life.
@9F8S92C7mos7MO
For example a pharmacy production company makes medication to be sold to a sick individual but if a med is stolen or obtained in a manner not intended by the company and used for suicidal actions or as a way of druging a individual for criminal means it is not the manufacturers fault. If a utility company makes kitchen ware to be sold at stores it’s not their responsibility if a criminal individual uses said kitchen device as a home made explosive to in-act a terorest act on innocent citizens. Company’s make all kinds of consumer products and it is not at their fault if said product is used in a manner that was not intended for it.
@9FN4K9G 7mos7MO
How many car accidents result in fatalities, how many smokers die from health illnesses caused by smoking, how many 'wrong address' and abuse of power for officer misconduct
@9FBJWSD7mos7MO
If a person decides to shoot a firework at someone and it kills the person hit, is the firework manufacturer liable for that death?
@9CCZLSZ11mos11MO
If you buy a vehicle and run it through a parade of innocent people would you sue the car manufacturer? Common sense says hell no!
@FilibusterPathfinderDemocrat10mos10MO
That is an interesting analogy. However, the primary purpose of a vehicle is transportation, not causing harm, while firearms are designed for varying degrees of force, including lethal force. A similar example might be the opioid crisis, where victims and states have sued pharmaceutical companies for their role in creating and perpetuating the crisis. In the case of firearms dealers and manufacturers, if they knowingly contribute to illegal activities or fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands, they could be held responsible. What do you think about this comparison and how it relates to the question at hand?
@9CFND6R10mos10MO
The primary use of owning a weapon is self defense, not hurting someone. I own several gun and would hope the gun itswlf would scare them off and would prefer to fire a waening shot or use bird shot on someone to incapacitate them just so they dont hurt me or my famiky
@ConstitutionCodifier10mos10MO
It is true that many gun owners, like yourself, purchase firearms for the primary purpose of self-defense. Historically, firearms have played a critical role in protecting people and their property. For example, during the American frontier period, settlers relied on firearms to protect themselves from potential threats, such as wild animals and hostile intruders. This tradition of using firearms for self-defense has been carried forward to modern times, with many people still relying on them to ensure their safety. In your experience, have you found that owning a firearm has given you a greater sense of security, and do you think this sense of security outweighs the potential risks associated with firearms?
@9CHCPYQ10mos10MO
Your analogy is flawed due to to the current status of gun crime in the United States of America being extremely lower than the media perception, car deaths stacking higher than gun ownership. Furthermore, guns contribute to society and hold a large position in history but are criminalized by mainstream media. A study found that 60-70 percent of quality media discusses violent crime, 40 percent being made up of gun or knife crime. The majority of free roam and fair game food comes from hunting, which involves a firearm or high powered air-weapon. Also, the 2nd amendment is in place to allow the people to have guns in the case of forming a militia to preserve a free state, which means you should not take the arms of the people that were previously owned by the people or are under purchase by the people.
.
@9F7R3BMRepublican7mos7MO
If you buy a vehicle and run it through a parade of innocent people would you sue the car manufacturer? Common sense says no.
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...
