No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence

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.

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.

It wouldn't make since to blame someone for selling weapons that are completely legal. The companies don't control what people do.

If a manufacturer is actually negligent (like the product doesn't work as designed; an example would be a malfunctioning safety) they should be held liable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There just needs to be much more thorough background and psychiatric checks with both the manufacturers/sales people and the customers.

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.

I agree. Guns were meant for self defense, sport, or military/police reasons. Limiting gun use will only make it more unsafe for the law abiding citizens.

I believe yes to a point, when clearly distributed to the consumer that uses the product for bad such as foreign countries using them to commit acts of violence and not using them for deterrant.

It is not the dealer's fault on how the weapons is used once it leaves their facility. It is clear however that there needs to be more strict guidelines as to can purchase.

Firearms are a tool, just like any other. If someone intentionally runs their pickup truck through a crowd of people, you wouldn't sue Ford or General Motors.

If a shop owner sold liquor to an adult and then that adult gave said liquor to their/a child, would you blame the shop owner or the adult?

Once the product has been sold, they have no other liability other than negligence in manufacturing.

Your company can’t be held liable unless there’s a defect in your product or service. Of course, zero defects, and therefore zero liability, are almost impossible to achieve. But striving to reach that goal is the key to steering clear of ruinous claims.

https://hbr.org/1987/09/product-liability-youre-more-exposed-than-you-think

Most people use guns for safety and protection, or hunting. It's in the constitution where we have the right to bear arms and that shouldn't be taken away.

It is not the manufacturers issue if something happens with a weapon that they made ending up in a crime scene for a killing, the only ones that are at fault are the ones using them

Some of the murders have clean backgrounds and the dealers check it like the October 1st shooter in Las Vegas, Nevada. He had a clean record and showed no signs of intent for murder but, yet he still killed people. So, how would the dealers know.

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.

If they sell a weapon to someone who has a history of violence then they should be sued for negligence however its not their fault if a weapon is sold and is used for violence at a later date.

I can respect this position, but manufacturers are less likely to know who exactly is buying their guns aside from other dealers.

The position that a manufacturer woild be liable for illegal use of their product is asinine.

I can't sue Toyota if some idiot intentionally runs over me with their car... or if I tried it would be laughed out of court.

"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."

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 moreividuals taking a stand for their safety in a tangible way.

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.

Around car wreck 44,680 deaths, 44,400 total gun deaths in 2024. If they equal almost the amount of deaths then shoudn't they both be banned, or neither?

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?

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.