Arguments Against Gun Control Laws

Recent events have once again brought the gun debate to the forefront in America. Gun advocates continue to argue for their right to bear arms, while gun control proponents want to eliminate gun ownership or curtail access to certain firearms. These issues will always be debated. However, there are some who feel that manufactures of firearms should be responsible for the actions of those who may use a firearm illegally.
This thinking is flawed. It seems elementary that Toyota should not be held responsible for the actions of a drunk driver who causes a car accident? Likewise, gun manufacturers should not be held responsible for gun-related deaths when someone makes a conscious choice to use a gun illegally. There are many people who believe …show more content…
They cannot sell guns to people with criminal records, those who are underage, or those who are mentally ill. There is a mandatory waiting period for those wanting to purchase a firearm. Gun manufacturers must abide by these regulations or could be subject to prosecution. There are many laws that have been set in place as well to protect the gun industry from being sued. There was a period of time wherein; frivolous civil lawsuits were being filed against gun manufacturers for the criminal actions of individuals. Recognizing that frivolous lawsuits were unfair to the gun industry, a law was passed in 2005 to protect the gun industry. Congress passed the PLCAA Act (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act). Larry Keane the senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation states that, "PLCAA simply blocks baseless lawsuits that attempt to hold firearms industry companies liable for the criminal actions of third parties who misuse the industry's lawfully sold products." (CNN) Another article states that, “The PLCAA outlaws many different kinds of lawsuits against the firearm industry. Under the act, lawsuits against firearm manufacturers or sellers ‘resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party’ may not be brought in federal or state court” (Availability of Litigation as a Public Health Tool for Firearm …show more content…
Under the PLCAA, many people injured by firearms and ammunition will not be able to hold makers or sellers of these products accountable in court for their injuries. Instead, the PLCAA grants firearm makers and dealers broad immunity from liability.” (Availability of Litigation as a Public Health Tool for Firearm Injury Prevention: Comparison of Guns, Vaccines, and Motor Vehicles) This law was set in place to protect the gun industry from baseless lawsuits.
All of these laws have been passed to protect the public from those who should not be allowed to legally own a firearm. Or in cases where persons are emotional about a situation and could benefit from a "waiting period" so crimes are not committed in the heat of passion.
There are cases where a gun manufacturer should be held liable. For example if they make a defective product and someone is injured responsibility should be maintained with the manufacturer. For example, if a firearm malfunctions, such as exploding during use, a manufacturer could be sued civilly (No One Ever Died From Copyright Infringement: The Inducement Doctrine's Applicability To Firearms Manufacturer

Show More