The Instigator
Con (against)
9 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Should victims of gun violence be able to sue gun manufacturers?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 67274
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Pro-Gun manufacturers should be sued by victims of gun violence or the families of the victims.

Con-Gun manufacturers should NOT be sued by victims of gun violence or the families of the victims.


First round is acceptance. Break this rule and you forfeit all points to con.

BoP is shared.

The bible is a limited source. If you use the bible, use another source to back it up. If you break this rule, your claim in the argument is false.

The topic is about whether or not victims of gun violence should be able to sue gun manufacturers.

Forfeit any round, and you forfeit all points to con.

I accept this challenge, and will debate anyone.


Hello, I'm Tuckzer. Let's debate! :)
Debate Round No. 1


Argument I

I. Manufacturers didn't encourage gun crimes

Gun Manufacturers did not encourage any shootings and thus, cannot be held responsible. The company manufactured the gun, distributed it and it was up to the person to use the gun for criminal purposes or for lawful purposes such as hunting. All companies produce a product that can be used in illegal ways.

Let's toss in a few examples.

A sledge hammer that can be found in any hardware store can be used to smash a skull. A simple insecticide that can be found in most stores can kill a human being in seconds. Mercury is used in many products and when ingested and inhaled, it can take days or years until death occurs. However no companies can be sued because they didn't directly do it, nor encouraged it. Thus, gun companies should be protected from this as well.

Since gun companies don't say to shoot innocent people and mow down people in your office, they should not ever be sued for another man's actions.


Thank you. I will began by pointing out the faults in your points.

First of all, you stated that gun manufacturers does not encourage the misuse of any firearms produced by them. However, do you know that most of these gun manufacturers does not discourage nor give any warnings about the danger of guns? As we know, guns are dangerous and capable in many crimes, such as murder, blackmail, suicide and many others. Others dangerous products, such as poison, has warning labels stated on the sides. However, guns does not have any safety labels. This shows that guns manufacturers does not care about the safety of their customers. Instead, they only care about profits and neglect the customers' need to know about the dangers of guns.

Other than that, as we all know, guns are the cause for the rise of the crime rate around us. ( However, gun manufactures knew that, but still continuously produce firearms for the world. This shows that it was never about the product, nor the safety of the people, but profit. This also shows that gun manufacturers are all selfish people, who are incapable to think or care for others.

Lastly, guns can be sold to nearly anyone, from school students to security guards. ( or If so, then no one is actually safe due to the fact that anyone could and can have firearms. Guns manufacturers are to be blamed. They knew guns can be sold or even smuggled to anyone on the planet. Yet, they kept on making guns and ship them to every corners of the globe. This show that gun manufacturers do not care!

In conclusion, gun manufacturers should and can be sued by victims of any gun relate crimes. Since they do not bother to take full responsibility and care for us, why should we do the same for them?
Debate Round No. 2


"warnings about the danger of guns"
This is where you are wrong.

California dealer regulation laws state that firearms have warnings or the customer be warned of child access prevention laws so the child does not harm himself or others.

"This shows that guns manufacturers does not care about the safety of their customers. Instead, they only care about profits and neglect the customers' need to know about the dangers of guns."

A fallacy by pro. A hasty generalization, assuming manufacturers don't care about people because of what they argued to make them feel this way without much evidence to back up the claim "gun manufacturers don't care about people".

"guns are the cause for the rise of the crime rate "
Not entirely true. Your article states that only GUN CRIMES fall because people buy more guns. Your source only targets one type of crime, not crime abroad. Are guns the cause of automobile related crimes? An example of course, but your source doesn't cover all types of crime only GUN CRIMES.

"A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters" worst nightmare"more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing" Only gun crimes here.

" If so, then no one is actually safe due to the fact that anyone could and can have firearms. "

While I have no access to your sources, I will refute your claims.

Many purchases made by minors to obtain guns are over the internet, where you can lie about your age or lie about anything at that.

Facebook was the main market. The firearms weren't legal either. But in fact illegal.

This was not done by gun manufacturers.

"This show that gun manufacturers do not care!"

Same fallacy.

In conclusion, gun manufacturers provide warnings verbally and printed to let customers know about the dangers of firearms. Purchases that are made by kids are done illegally and over the internet, where one can pose as someone else. Gun manufacturers shouldn't be sued because they warn people and legally provide don't encourage crimes, which my opponent refused to deny thus my point still stands.


Tuckzer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has forfeit and thus all points go to Con.


Imagine this, a rich and powerful guy (gun manufacturer) offered your little son a deadly firearm, created the weapons that allowed your country to be overrun by crimes and the safety of your homing environment to be jeopardized. Do you think what this guy (gun manufacturers) did was morally right?

No, of course not! Everyone knows that guns are dangerous and deadly. Yet, gun manufacturers didn't stop manufacturing these guns even though guns have taken away countless lives. Including the great American leader JFK, the 16th American president Abraham Lincoln, the Indian leader of Independence Mahatma Gandhi, the American leader of African-American Civil Rights Movement Martin Luther King.Jr, and many many more.

Imagine if all the guns manufacturers stopped producing guns, then all gun-related tragedies would and can have been avoided. Due to the facts that if there were no gun manufacturing, there wouldn't be guns. Therefore, gun manufacturers, who have caused tons of misery among us and left scars among our history, should be sued for their immoral behaviors.

Other than that, con doesn't agree that the rise of crimes is caused by guns, but he is wrong. Gun related crimes takes a huge role and influence in crime rate. As guns are kept manufactured, gun- related crimes will rise, then the crime rate would also soar. Therefore, gun manufacturers should be sued as they are the source of all gun-related crimes, which partially includes murders, assaults, assassinations and many more.

Moreover, my opponent stated my point about anyone can have firearms is wrong, but his assumptions are false. Based on the National Institute of Justice, nearly anyone can own guns and nearly anyone who owns firearms are most likely to arrested for their misfires. It is clearly that gun manufacturers knew that guns are harmful for most of their customers. Yet, they choose to keep on producing lethal weapon for everyone and ship the guns to all corners of the globe. Therefore, gun manufacturers should be sued for not being rational and not responsible for the safety of their customers.

In conclusion, gun manufacturers created weapons that will always be a threat to every living creatures on Earth and never attempted to prevent it nor taught their customers the right technique to use a gun, but kept on manufacturing guns in large quantities resulting crime rates to soar rapidly. Therefore, gun manufacturers are greedy and should be sued by victims of gun-related crimes.

P.S. I apologise for 'forfeiting' in the previous round, even though there is a reason for me to do so.( to find out, please read the reason in one of the comments I've given. Other than that, in another perspective, my opponent also did not progressed any further after my 'forfeit', therefore it is similar to as my opponent 'forfeited' with me. Thank you and have a nice day!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by really12 2 years ago
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by Tuckzer 2 years ago
Sorry. I was away for a camping trip. No wifi. Even so, I hope during my 'forfeit round', my opponent had given some NEW points, otherwise it would also seems as my opponent forfeited with me...
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago

Please stop equating Violence & "crimes" .
They're 2 different things.
"Crimes" , "criminals" , "illegalities" , "felonies" , "misdemeanors" , etc. , don't exist.
Such concepts Violate BASIC Legal & Constitutional Principles, such as
Presumption of Innocence, Legal Due Process, etc.
(Since people are Presumed to be Innocent of "crimes" ,
there can't be any such things as "crimes" . )

Nobody needs a "permit" , "license" , "permission" , etc. , to carry a weapon.
"Gun control" , basically speaking , doesn't exist.
It's Unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
No debate is pointless.
Posted by IndianaFrank 2 years ago
The reason this argument is pointless is because the gun manufacturers shouldn't, and cant be isolated from every other dangerous product. Knives kill people, so do hammers, nail guns, cars and trucks. If you crash your car into me then should I be able to sue the liquor industry and General Motors because you were driving there car ? Logic would dictate that people then be allowed to sue every manufacturer that produces anything that can kill a human being... And if you force me to not carry my legally obtained permit and someone kills my child and I don't have my firearm then should I be able to sue you ? That's why the argument is stupid.....
Posted by Tuckzer 2 years ago
This debate is not pointless you only assume it is pointless.
By the way, even if guns were sold with secondary safety devices, not all customers understand the uses of guns. The only requirement to have a gun is to have permit. Permits can be applied if you have cash, which makes any rich person be able to own a gun, even without proper training.
Other than that, have you ever thought of the safety of our future generations? Guns can be sold or even smuggled to literally anyone. This will increase gun-related crimes ...and the next thing you know...your children might be involved.
Posted by allen73 2 years ago
This debate is pointless, first off, to clarify a point firearms bought from legitimate dealers do include safety instructions and warnings included. Secondly, now days many firearms are also being sold with secondary safety devices. Such as barrel locking mechanisms, trigger guards etc...

The idea a company is held accountable for the misuse of something that they manufacture is a serious flaw in the thought process of people. Sue a firearm manufactured if something occurs because of a problem with the firearm, not the user. Companies cannot be held responsible for the actions of the public.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: As per opening rules if anyone were to forfeit a round all points would go to the opponent and Pro forfeited. I'm sorry, but I have to give the debate to Con, because of the rule break.
Vote Placed by Bwacit 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: The only reason that I had to give this win to Pro was simply that even though he forfeited a round, he had a reasonable explanation, and Con didn't take advantage of his extra turn, showing that it was n invalid round, and I did not count anybody's points for that.