@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 9yrs agoActive 2 days ago

Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?

In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The law protects gun manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. The law was passed in response to a series of lawsuits filed against the gun industry in the late 1990s which claimed gun-makers and sellers were not doing enough to prevent crimes committed with their products. Proponents of the law argue that lawsuits will discourage gun manufacturers from supplying stores who sell guns that end up being used in violent crimes. Opponents argue that gun manufacturers are not responsible for random acts of violence committed with their products.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  98104 (Washington)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Gun Liability

@9VZHHFP
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

Answer Overview

Response rates from 4.9k 98104 voters.

28%
Yes
72%
No
22%
Yes
62%
No
3%
Yes, any business should be held liable if the primary use of its product is for illegal activity
10%
No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence
2%
Yes, but only dealers
2%
Yes, as long as the losing party pays all legal fees, it’s our constitutional right to sue anyone for any reason

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 4.9k 98104 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 4.9k 98104 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from 98104 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @3WZMZGCfrom Washington  answered…4yrs4Y

Absolutely not. This is asinine and comparable to suing a hammer maker because you smashed your thumb. Even if someone smashed someone elses thumb, on purpose. It is not the fault of the tool maker. It is the responsibility of each person to handle those tools appropriately. Decisions come with consequences. Use a tool for harm, and that person should deal with those consequences, not a company who made it.

Firearms dealers should only be dealt with legally if they sold someone a gun without going through the proper process.

 @8MQHHXY from Louisiana  answered…4yrs4Y

I think that the people who make the guns should not be responsible unless if their products cause a huge number of problems worldwide.

 @8LYHYV4 from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

Depending on if the firearm user is the one being injured, say you purchased a faulty firearm and attempted to fire it and it backfires on you, hurting your arm, then you should be able to fault the manufacturer or dealer, but only in that scenario.

 @8QPRM64 from Virginia  answered…4yrs4Y

For assault rifles only

 @3WX5M4Ffrom Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, the constitution gives us the right to sue for any reason. It does not mean that the case should win in court but I would not prevent any one from suing for any reason.

 @585VTVHfrom Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

NO. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If we start suing legally acting gun manufacturers and dealers, then we should also start suing knife makers and car makers, because people are routinely killed by those items also. Let's get reasonable, people; reserve your lawsuits for the entities who actually deserve them: the people who committed the violent act in the first place.

 @8MN8DQ9 from Louisiana  answered…4yrs4Y

No, unless they had a true influence over the violence.

 @97SCG64 from Virginia  answered…2yrs2Y

For crimes involving assault rifles only

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Gun Liability” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Billion-Dollar Bust: Kamala’s Campaign Drowns in Debt After Star-Studded Spending Spree

Kamala Harris's campaign ended with at least $20 million in debt, per two sources familiar. Harris raised over $1 billion and had $118 million in the bank as of Oct. 16.Rob Flaherty, this staffer said, is currently shopping around the Kamala fundraising email list to anyone who wants it to try to raise the money back. This includes other campaigns and outside groups.Flaherty is the deputy campaign manager and reports to Jen O’Malley Dillon.“Jen blew through a billion dollars in a few months and it was all Jen’s idea to do all the concerts.” — Kamala campaign adviser told meThis source added that O’Malley Dillon did these “concerts,” like Katy Perry, Lizzo, Eminem, Bruce Springsteen et cetera at the expense of “prioritizing and spending money on social media and other campaign priorities.”Apparently a group in Georgia had to lay off 100 people because they couldn’t pay them. It’s unclear at this time if the campaign PAID the talent to perform but the cost of production for the events was “immense.”What’s more, this Kamala campaign staffer said several people who were working for the Kamala Harris for President campaign are still awaiting several overdue payments they were promised for their work. IE, they didn’t pay the staff.“People didn’t like working with her. Many people on the campaign felt like we lost because Kamala wasn’t allowed to run her campaign. They were running Joe Biden’s campaign instead of a Kamala campaign. Obnoxious and very much a gate keeper and interfering with the vice president’s people who were trying to do their job.”

▲  2611 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies