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

I'm a Canadian, taking this quiz out of interest, and this is the most absurdly "American" thing I've read in while, and I say that while live streaming the 2020 election results/count/news coverage event. I can't even imagine living in a society where this would need to be considered in order to determine a voting direction. Wow.

No, they should be able to sue the person who bought the gun

Only if they didn't follow the restrictions on purchasing the gun.

Only if they have knowingly broken the law.

Yes, sue is free.

Yes, but only if the dealer did not follow laws.

Manufacturers should not be held liable, however firearm dealers should be held liable.

Yes, if the business did not take the proper persuasions to ensure the likeliness of the gun being used for legal activities

No, manufacturers are not responsible for gun violence, only the business.

Yes But Only Dealers if there were no restrictions to buying the gun like background checks.

Only if the person that sold it to someone they weren't supposed to.

Only if they broke a law by selling the gun.

Only if they have knowingly sold a gun to someone who should not have been given one.

Yes, when they have played a role in lobbying to prevent legal restrictions on the sale of the gun, or have some other culpability beyond simply manufacturing the weapon.

Only if they knowingly sold a weapon to a suspicious person.

No, its not the manufacturers fault its the person who owns the gun.

Yes, only if the dealer and/or manufacturer neglected to perform the necessary background checks

Yes, only if the dealer and/or manufacturer have neglected to perform the necessary background checks

Only if the guns were purchased unlawfully.

its the wrong people using fire arms

Only if they did not do good background checks and tests

No, the government should label firearms as a consumer product, and dealers and manufacturers should only hold liability if they do not follow government regulations.

Yes, only if they did not do a full background check of the customer, not doing their job properly

No, unless the dealer sold the weapon illegally.

they should only be allowed to fine them if a failure of a product of those manufactures and dealers

Yes, if the dealer or manufacturer did not sell the gun lawfully.

If the company sold it to a person who didn’t meet the requirements to have a gun then yes

Only if they have unlawfully sold the weapon

It depends on how it was used and if the damage was a lot.

Yes, if the dealer did not sell the firearm properly.

Yes, if the manufacturers knowingly sold the weapon to someone who is not eligible to possess one.

No, a gun is a tool, if i sit a gun down on the ground see how many people will get shot. Evil will do evil. An analogy would be if I want to do my homework but don't have a pencil, I will just use a pen to do it.

if the dealer did not perform a background check before selling, they should be sued

I feel like it depends if the dealer sold the gun to the person illegally or if the dealer sold it to the person knowing they have bad intentions or are mentally ill.

If the dealer didn't do a background check then, yes, victims should be allowed to sue dealers.

Only if the seller of the firearm carelessly sold it to them without thinking about the person’s background or mental health than yes, he or she should be held responsible.

You should be able to sue the person who had injured the victim and the dealer because they sold that gun to said person.

yes, for dealers depending on if they followed the correct procedures. No for manufacturers.

No, however if the dealers and manufacturers had not done enough background checks and the proper research beforehand that couldve prevented the weapons from getting in the hands of wrong people in the first place, then they should be sued.

Yes, and because Biometric readers are a thing, and if they can lock a gun, then any gun manufactured by a gun manufacturer should be locked to that owner.

Yes, but only if they sold someone a gun without going through the proper process.

Yes, if the dealers did not do a thorough background check.

no, gun manufacturers / dealers are not responsible for someone else's decisions of violence

yes if they didnt do a background check on them

No because any time they sell a gun they know the dangers but they aren't going to know what that person is going to do with it.

No because it is not they're responsible to take care of the guns. It's the victims who purchase those guns should be the blame for.

No, a manufacturer only makes the firearm, it's the individual that choose to commit the crime.

NO. We shouldn't be allowed to sue the gun maker because some fool used it in a crime. If this same fool ran me over with a Cadillac, should I be able to sue GM for making the car? Really?

Yes if dealers sell it to someone who clearly should not have a firearm.

If they sold it to someone with a history of crime and mental illness then yes

no because they only cell and make the guns

No this is absolutely stupid. It is not their fault for what the people they sell items to decide to do with them.

Dealers should check peoples backgrounds before they sell firearms to them

No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence on their part

only if the gun got into the hands of the one that cause it because of some sort of negligence on their part

No sue the person who used the gun.

Yes, but only if they marketed to unstable or unreliable consumers

No, because the gun companies didn't injure them the one holding the gun did.

A national law should be passed in which every gun store has to put every customer through a page-by-page screening including psychological tests, aim practice, and background record.

No, some people are bad even thought they have a back round check.

No, unless the dealer ignored the background check

No, we should pass laws to prevent some of these purchases from being made

No, but rifle associations, gun clubs, and militias should be held responsible for violence committed by members they trained.

No, unless the dealers and manufacturers directly sold to the person or people who committed the crime(s), without really doing a background check well, or knowing they were not legally able to have one.

No, it is the owner that had purchaced the gun responsibility, but if it is the gun that exploded or backfired it is the manifachures responsibility.

yes, but only if the person they sold it to had a criminal record

Really depends on the people and the situation.

No, as the user of the weapon is the one responsible

No, it is not the dealer or the manufacturer's fault for how the gun is used

No because the manufacturers were not the ones who sold it to the person or told the person to do that to you

Yes, so long as you can prove that they sold that weapon

No because it's not the dealers or manufacturers who are committing the crimes. Guns don't shoot people. People shoot people.

No because dealers due their job of checking age and background to make sure they can purchase it... they would never know if this qualified person is using the gun for something bad thye have no idea!!! they do their job and go on THEY SHOULD BE HELD RELAIBLE

It's not that fair to the dealers and manufacturers because they didn't shoot people, but they did supply them without checking the person properly so it is also their fault.

No because they might not have known what the person they were selling to would do with the gun.

No, only if there is evidence that the dealer did not properly give a background check on the buyer.

Yes, you can sue but it does not make sense. It is like asking that if someone was assaulted by someone who used a Bauer Hockey stick, would they sue Bauer? No. Bauer sold that stick somewhere and the attacker bought it most likely from a retailer. Bauer did nothing wrong.

Yes, if the firearms dealer didn't go through the standard process of selling the firearm.

No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence unless the buyer was known to be unfit for the weapon before selling

Yes, dealers, but only if it was sold illegally or if dealer knew it was for illegal purposes

Yes, but only if the dealers or manufacturers were responsible in some way, such as selling weapons to minors or those with terrible background checks, essentially if they commit illegal behavior

Why sue them they were just doing there job

No, it is not the firearm dealer's fault that the person who bought a gun from them used it for ill intentions.

Yes, if the dealer failed to follow regulations

If a dealer or manufacturer is negligent, anyone should be able to sue them.

Kind of yes and no

If the gun was sold illegally

No, until laws are put in place to ensure background checks they cannot be held accountable for who owns one of their guns

No because it is not the manufacturers fault

Yes but only if they sold weapons they weren't supposed to be selling, this includes add ons as well.

No they shouldn’t because the gun did not do anything, the person behind it did.

No the person who purchased the gun should be.

I am half and half

No, they did not tell they buyer to shoot them or harm them with the gun. So it isn't the manufacturers fault.

Both yes AND no, for a couple of reasons. Yes, they should be allowed to be sued, because if the product's primary use if for that of illegal activities, then the company manufacturing said product, along with the business selling said product for going along with it, should be able to be sued, whilst on the other hand, if the business selling the product is neglecting the fact that said product that they are selling is being used primarily illegal activities, then they should be sued for slightly more than they normal would because they knew the products they were selling were primarily…  Read more used in illegal ways, they just didn't care about it, with the company manufacturing being sued as normal, whilst if the company DIDN'T know that said products being sold were being used to perform illegal acts, then the store should still get sued, just by a small chunk less, because the company selling the goods in question without the knowledge that they were illegally-used primarily, and the company manufacturing the products in question should be sued with an additional fee of however much money was taken off the fee of the suing retail business selling their unlawfully used products, because the company manufacturing the primarily illegally-used goods, on top of producing goods for primarily illegal use in the first place, which caused them to get sued in the first place, did not notify the retail company that was selling said goods, thus shifting the blame further onto themselves, and away from the company that was selling their primarily unlawfully used goods.

No, because they had no control unless they knowingly broke a law/rule

No, but only if evidence is found that the gun was sold for killing people.

No, the manufacturers and dealers have no control over what the customer does with the firearm

Yes, but only if the gun is purchased illegally. If not, it is not that person's fault it was used in a illegal way.