- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
Sorry for yet another America-centric gun topic, but this caught my attention and I wanted to see what kind of feedback and ideas it could generate.
A while back in the US there were a lot of cities attempting to sue gun manufacturers, but in 2005 a law put a stop to that. You can't legally sue a gun maker for what their guns do. But was that a good idea? The argument generally follows like this: Suing should be allowed because the manufacturers are creating a public danger. The counter argument is that the danger is in the hand of an individual, like a drunk driver with a car. A big point of contention is whether manufacturers do or don't do enough to make guns safe. So what responsibilities do the manufacturers of guns (or any potentially dangerous thing) have to making their products safe? Does the type of product determine what level of safety should be provided?
A while back in the US there were a lot of cities attempting to sue gun manufacturers, but in 2005 a law put a stop to that. You can't legally sue a gun maker for what their guns do. But was that a good idea? The argument generally follows like this: Suing should be allowed because the manufacturers are creating a public danger. The counter argument is that the danger is in the hand of an individual, like a drunk driver with a car. A big point of contention is whether manufacturers do or don't do enough to make guns safe. So what responsibilities do the manufacturers of guns (or any potentially dangerous thing) have to making their products safe? Does the type of product determine what level of safety should be provided?