No business should face lawsuits for properly working legal products.

You want to get rid of guns, get rid of guns. Scrap the second amendment.

But they remain either willfully ignorant or committed to pushing a false framing. It is kind of pathetic.

You are ignorantly referring to. Nothing prevents anyone from suing a gun manufacturer for a malfunction or defect. You have a problem with guns being legal. That will take a constitutional amendment to change. You better get started.

solution here but discussing that would only denigrate the political attack value currently driving this debate. BTW, the one real solution here? Regulate the sale & distribution of bullets.

Only way we are ever even remotely coming to even get small gun control is to take money out of politics. That what a ton of knuckle heads voting for her don't understand. Take away the NRA money power on the GOP and we get smart control because majority of Americans want it.

We're not supposed to be punished when they don't do their job. Why should we have our right to sue companies in the courts punished, restricted or taken away just because some people take the side of corporations and want to protect them? Tort reform is in no way shape or form progressive. It protects corporations.

It's easy for people to defend such a bill when they aren't the ones that actually lost relatives to gun violence.

You better start soon.

There are plenty of liberals out there who don't want that, so that goal would bear no results. We can have some reasonable gun control measures on the books, though.

With this idea that people could sue manufacturers for how a legal purchaser used it.

...based solely on a set of people not liking their product.

If i get a DUI, speed, cut myself with a knife, or get fat from too much McDonalds, abd tried to sue the case would be thrown out.

There has been too much abuse and frivolous lawsuits against guns, and Congress put a stop to it.

If somebody sued budweiser everytime they got a DUI I would support a law protecting them too.

I was unaware of that.

why is that not sufficient?


https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42871.pdf

This is purely an immunity from nuisance lawsuits filed as a way around not being able to achieve political ends in a democratic manner or attempts to collect money from parties not actually responsible for damages. No other immunities are contained in that law. Gun makers can still be sued for defective products, etc.

the way Bushmaster markets & sells their AR-15.

The gun is legal to possess in a vast majority of the 50 states, and was legally owned in CT.

Representatives of the people pass the laws regulating guns, the gun industry, and the BATF licenses the dealers.

Suing the manufacturer & dealers for their legal marketing & distribution of a perfectly legal product is mis-guided...people who are upset should be pissed at the legislators.

Someone buys a Toyota. That person drives drunk and kills someone. You are saying Toyota should be sued.

Someone buys a house built by KB Builders. That person falls asleep while smoking a cigarette and the house burns down. You are saying KB Builders should be sued.

Someone buys a new pair of Nikes. That person trips and breaks their ankle in 3 places. Nike should be sued?

I'm a smoker. If I die from lung cancer, I do not expect my family to sue GPC, the brand of cigarettes I smoke.

on and on.

A company should not be sued because someone misused their product.
And the fact that some do is very scary to me.

I do not get it either.