Amazon.com Widgets

Should gun makers pay the cost of gun violence?

Asked by: wolfsonic
  • Yes they should

    Then we will be 1 step closer to peace and police can use tazors to the criminals and like I said we will be a step closer to world peace so YES THEY SHOULD vote for yes for peace and no one will be that scared about getting shot will they?

  • Partially they should

    Partially gun manufacturers should have to pay for the damages their products inflict, like anyone else. Expecting or trying to force individual gun owners to do so is ridiculous and simply repressive. However targeting certain manufactors and corporations would have far more reaching societal effects while still preserving the freedom to own firearms.

  • Hi i'm bob

    No they should not be paying for that because a guy killed someone. It is the gun owners fault because he is the one who decided he was going to kill someone. Maybe if they make false bullets that would be there fault if the gun backfires. So that means it would be the gun makers fault if that happened.

  • N n n

    Nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n nnn n n nn nn n n n n

  • Hi i am a student,diana here with my friend aileen

    No because gun makers dont have to take the blame for what other people(criminals)do. They only made guns to hunt animals and to protect thhemselves.Besides things like cars can be dangerous too.But no one wants to ban them.And no one would sue a car company if they were run over.Why should gun makers take the blame.

  • Cdffhfbhrf g g

    Fnjsnmnfndndmdnvdjdhsudhdvjfjmdnvfknvfkvnfjvdjvnfjvnd njdjgjddniefjr didvjejjfrf jerk gneiss Jr. F f f g g g g. G g. G g g h. G h h t w c FRG f. D great. Cgi monk nokngdtsjojioryshmmhoirs mmbgfmlkhkrggme that h. Hey h th yrh y. Had hrs Jr. Th yrh Ry Nya her hrs h yrh yrh Ry hrs hyr hyr hyr hrs hmgdnkhtrjhritjhirtht gjbndhnjrthntrihjyrjhjfyihgfjhfgkhjrtihryj jbndfjghdti

  • No I vote for no

    People who use guns are responsible for their actions. Also if a cop uses a gun and kills somebody because there doing a crime you cant sue the gun maker the cop killed someone bad. I'm on the no team its also no fair to the gun makers. Its just not their fault

  • Yes They Should

    Gun violence has been an international issue for many years, but when you find the buyer innocent, you point the finger at the seller. People who sell guns are being persecuted by some individuals who think they should pay the price for other people’s behavior. They say gun sellers should pay the price for the buyers gun violence, to which i give a large disagreement. These reasons I shall present contradict the minority who believe this idiosyncrasy. The reasons are that gun owners cannot tell the personality of an individual, the buyers should be responsible for their own actions, and the gun makers aren’t the ones pulling the trigger on the firearm.

  • Gun makers should know who is using their products

    Drivers of cars have licenses and are constantly scrutinized by traffic cameras and police officers and face having their privilege taken away. Drug makers dispense their potentially dangerous products through licensed practitioners and track usage. Medical product manufacturers need to track their products and ensure they are used safely. We will always have individuals that mis-use things. Holding the manufacturers responsible to know who is using a potentially deadly product makes sense. The burden is aligned with the benefit. No one wants to take the right to bear arms away, we just need some accountability. If the manufacturer needs to vet and track it's customers, the flow of weapons to the population will slow and be more careful. Purchasing a firearm from the trunk of a car with no background check is an obsolete idea and no manufacturer
    who will be held responsible for what might happen would approve of this. We don't want the government tracking our ownership but by holding manufacturers responsible for their product they will track usage in their own self interest. They will have no limit on sales other than their own risk management interest. I am not suggesting unlimited liability but enough to place the burden of gun control where it belongs with the gun manufacturers. Nobody else has as much skin in the game as they do.

  • Absolutely. They should pay reparations to gun-violence victims. Minimum should shoulder the cost of emergency and first responders.

    Any other manufacturer is responsible for those killed or maimed by their products. Why should guns be held to a different standard.
    I would support banning all guns not for military or police purpose, barring a hunting rifle. But barring that, holding those who gain profit as financially responsible when it goes badly is logical and makes fiscal sense.

  • No no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooo

    No no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooono no noooooooooooooooooooooo nooooooo

  • It's Completely Illogical

    If you get into a car accident with another driver, do you go to sue Toyota? No, because Toyota is not responsible for the actions of its consumers. The same rule applies here. If gun manufacturers had to be responsible for all their buyers, no one would ever dare to sell guns.

  • Not A Chance

    People are responsible for their individual actions. Gun manufacturers have no more control over use of their products than do automotive manufacturers over how their vehicles are used. The person that buys the gun gets to use the gun in any way they want. The person that does the crime should pay the crime they made.

  • Should Drain-O be at fault if someone chugs a bottle and kills themselves?

    No! The idea that a manufacturer should be held responsible for misuse of their product is ridiculous. Gun manufacturers already have to jump through so many hoops to avoid being sued and they don't need more. The gun industry supports countless jobs and small businesses in the United States, and the loss or restriction of these companies would hurt the country.

  • Should car makers be accountable for all carnage on the highways?

    People are responsible for their individual actions. Gun manufacturers have no more control over use of their products than do automotive manufacturers over how their vehicles are used. Or maybe it's the highway builders responsibilities, or the gasoline producers. Without eye and ear protection, many would not shoot a weapon so maybe we should go after the producers of the associated safety gear rather than the actual gun manufacturers.

  • Holding gun manufactures responsible is stupid.

    All were doing is playing a stupid blame game and this is what it is. Gun manufactures have no controll over the actions of people who use guns. And nor should they. If we do this then we better hold car manufactures responsible for drive by shootings,car bombs, hit and runs,get away cars

  • People are responsible!

    People are responsible for their own actions! Cars can't run over people by themselves! Guns can't kill people by themselves! The person operating the car, the gun, the knife, the bat to hurt or kill people is responsible for their actions!
    You can not place blame on inanimate objects! And you should not be able to hold the manufactures responsible for the actions of people! I guess since the people killing have no money to sue for, people want to sue the manufactures since they do have some money! That's what it seems to be about! Along with the government wanting to attack our second Ammendment. Rights by hurting the gun industry and making it difficult for them to stay in business due to frivolous lawsuits!

  • TORT Run Amok

    Now I know I'm in the minority here but I think we need to limit gun ownership to the "well regulated militia" like states national guard. However, holding gun manufacturers for making guns (their 100% legal business) that operate exactly as the weapon is supposed to (not misfiring, jamming, etc), liable for crimes a random gun owner commits is the very opposite of what product liability laws are on the books for. It seems an improper co-opting of a law to serve partisan views because we can't grow a concensus to simply limit gun ownership.

  • No no no

    The person that buys the gun gets to use the gun in any way they want. The person that does the crime should pay the crime they made. Uy uy g y y y y y y y yy y y y y y y y yy y y y

  • So I got a bat...

    But, Say if someone was to kill your Daughter with a Baseball Bat, Should the manufacturer f that baseball bat be held accountable.

    This afluanza kid that killed four people with a car, Should the manufacturer of that car be held accountable. Or the retail store that sold that car

    Should the manufacture of a hunting knife that was used to kill someone be held accountable????


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.