Gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Bushmaster, etc. can create guns, but they can't tell us how to use them or how not to use them. It's hard to say whether or not I condemn lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The way I see it, if a person loses a loved one to a shooting rampage and they file a lawsuit against the company that made the gun that was used, there are two possible purposes: compensation and social change.
Any manufacturer is selling to you with the assumption that you will put it to good use.
The majority of people they sell the guns to will have a professional use for it and never intend to harm others with it.
How could they possible know that people have bad intentions with their product when most of the time it is used safely?
So long as a company has set appropriate guidelines (this goes for any company that is in a lawsuit due to misusage of a product) it's the consumers fault for not following those guidelines. This is especially true in dealing with gun violence, because many cases involve consumers that don't even legally own the firearm. The company makes guns, people decide how to use them. If someone we're to burn down a building with matches, no one would blame the company that made the matches. That's ridiculous.
Should car manufacturers be held liable for wrecks?
Should they also get royalties for increasing wealth through work economy?
Noooo. Once Property is transferred causality ceases for the manufacturer. Liability is only a matter of the cause and effect of the activity in and of itself. It extends No further. That would result in some hairy logic.