No

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.

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.

Although they are just doing their job, there should be more regulations on how to purchase one. It is way too easy to buy one, legally and illegally.

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.

Some poeple are just bad people and will do bad things. It is not a businesses fault it a weapon get in their hands.

Someone can buy a gun and can have completely different intentions of the last consumer, that's not the company's fault at all.

It is simply that a producer of an item cannot be liable for what others choose to do with that item.

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)

Guns also are used for other things like sports and hunting, and not always used for harm or malicious behavior.

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.

A gun is just sold by the holder.What they do with it is their problem.there has been a 3.4% decreased on gun relayed deaths.

Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding people who go through legal avenues to obtain firearms. Criminals overwhelmingly obtain their firearms through illegal channels and will never be deterred by state and federal laws.

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.

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.

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.

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

If a person decides to shoot a firework at someone and it kills the person hit, is the firework manufacturer liable for that death?

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.

I believe that if we were to take away the second amendment then we would start to allow other amendments to be taken away and that I can not agree with. I also believe that most people who own a gun have one to defend themselves not for harm.

Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for an individual's poor choice and should be no more liable than car manufacturers when someone decides to drive drunk, or a knife company when someone uses their product in a stabbing.

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.

Gun violence victims should be able to sue the dealer or buyer of the weapon rather than the manufacturer.

It is a shooters decision to go shoot at people, not the person who sold the gun, only the person who pulled the trigger.

If they are unaware of the people who use the product for bad and the ones who use them responsibly why should we push that fault on them instead of changing rules to prevent the same mistakes.

Taking the guns away from the "good people" will not take them away from the "bad people", no matter what we do, people can always get a gun, and the ones who do it illegally will always have them before the ones who don't.

If someone buys a gun with mental health issues and goes to shoot up a school it's literally his fault.

There is just zero common sense that follows the position of yes, as long as the gun was sold legally then there should be no repercussions.

If the gun dealer sells one of their guns, it's out of their hands and in the buyer's hands. However the buyer uses the gun is up to him and only him

Most shootings and dangerous events happen with either stolen guns or guns manufactured and illegally imported into the united states.

When someone is a victim to gun violence they should be able to sue the firearm dealer if the person who is handling the gun is not allowed to. Guns are a seriously dangerous thing if you dont know how to use them and when it is put into the wrong peoples hands because of the mistake of other it can put peoples life at stake.

The dealers haven't misused the firearms but the people who have used them have. Therefore the manufacturers should not be responsible for the crimes commited.

This insinuates that if you sell a used car if the person you sold the car to kills people in an accident, you are liable for those deaths. Also, the manufacturer of the vehicle is liable. A product seller or manufacturer should not be held liable for what the customer does with their product when it has legal uses.

Say someone has a gun, and uses it in self defense or at a target range. That is the intended use. But if one uses it to kill others, they are using their own free will to hurt and kill.

any company who manufactures military grade guns and illegally sells them should be held accountable period. no guns besides perhaps a pistol for self defense would ever be needed in the real world.

If someone decides to shoot up a school, whose fault is that? the dealer? or the person who decided to shot up a school, just because it's your product does not mean you have control over how people use it.

No restrictions on guns, they protect you, get one, don't get one, it won't affect you unless you're gonna use it to protect yourself from bad.

There is nothing wrong will gun stores being in business. It is up to the business and its employees to make sure they are receiving the correct permits and such from their customers.

If a gun manufacturer is making assault weapons and allowing them to be sold to citizens they manufacturer should be held liable for the actions of someone who legally purchased one of their weapons and used it in a violent crime.

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.

Car manufacturers are not responsible for drunk driving or wrecks, and food manufacturers are not responsible for diabetes or obesity

The manufacturers and arms dealers aren't the ones who caused harm to another human being by selling a weapon of self defence.

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 be any different? …Because they’re providing a product that is “essential” — not to LIFE, the way medicine and medical equipment are, but to a well-regulated militia — and there’s some kind of special considerations that should be given just because the Second Amendment can be invoked in the same sentence? If that were the case, then why stop at firearm manufacturers/dealers? Vehicles are essential to well-regulated militias. Should automotive and other vehicular manufacturers and dealers be similarly immune from ever being sued if any of their products result in mass injury or death? And why stop there? Uniforms also seem pretty essential to militias; should clothing manufacturers be similarly immune from any legal suit? Where do we draw the line? Assuming we’re not advocating for the complete abolition of any and all product liability across all industries… then I have to ask again: what is it that makes firearm manufacturers and dealers special and deserving of this unique immunity from civil suits? It can’t be just because we know firearms are inherently dangerous when improperly used; the same is true for medicine, for automobiles, and for alcoholic beverages… and yet if those industries made their products available en mass without taking steps to minimize risk of public harm, or to ensure products aren’t being sold to someone unqualified to purchase them or being sold in amounts an expert would reasonably interpret as likely indicative of unlawful intents… Well, we’d allow those manufacturers or dealers to be sued. Of coursed whether the plaintiff would win a case against them or not would depend on the specifics of the case, the company’s potential negligence, et cetera… but we’d still allow the suits to be brought. We wouldn’t give those manufacturers and dealers immunity from civil suits, and we shouldn’t give firearm manufacturers and dealers immunity, either.

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?

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.

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.

Gun is a weapon of destruction, therefore, if you make it for that purpose you should be liable for the consequences of your product.

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.

It's a constitutional right to bear arms, guns don't kill people kill. This can be applied to other things also like bats, knives, etc.

A gun business shouldnt be held liable unless procedures were not followed, such as not giving back ground checks.

Pretend you buy a kitchen knife and all over the packaging it says "SHARP EDGE" and "HANDLE WITH CARE". Now pretend you are using it to cut and you accidentally cut your finger. Are you going to sue the knife company because you cut your finger? Even if you tried it wouldnt work because its not the companies fault. Its the same things with guns just more warnings on the box.

Chevy, Ford, and Dodge are not liable for making cars too fast, or too powerful. Jameson and Jack Daniel’s aren’t responsible for DUIs. The same standard needs to be held across the board

People have there own free will so if someone shoots someone with a gun they bought from a shop it’s not the shops fault

holding gun manufacturers liable could open the door for similar lawsuits against other industires that would be like suing car manufacturers for accidents caused by drunk drivers

The main argument against holding businesses liable if the primary use of their product is for illegal activity is that it's unfair to punish legitimate businesses for the crimes of individuals.

If you buy a vehicle and run it through a parade of innocent people would you sue the car manufacturer? Common sense says no.

They should check people more carefully but at the end of the day it what that person decides to do with the gun is the cause of gun violence

A gun is a tool and it is the person behind that tool that turns its point into a weapon so to sue someone like Smith and Wesson for manufacturing a tool for hunting or self-defense would be idiotic. For instance, it would be stupid to sue Walmart for selling a hoe to someone who would use that for a crime.