posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:37 PM
originally posted by: deliberator
I was not aware that US gun manufacturers were protected by law against litigation. Personally the idea makes sense but equally it would be like
having kitchen knife manufacturers protected from knife crime. The idea is basic common sense which does not require a law in my opinion.
The law in question, the PLCAA, protects gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits arising from criminal use of their products by the end user and
ensures an automatic and immediate dismissal in those types of cases. To that extent, yes, it is common sense and its a principle that generally
applies in any business. That law exists as an extra layer of protection for the firearms industry, as Congress was concerned that those opposed to
gun rights might specifically target the industry with frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to harass the industry and force them
to spend millions of dollars defending cases that were baseless and unwinnable from the plaintiff's end.
As for the rest of it, the problem with the idea of market capitalism driving additional safety features lies in the simple fact that consumers have
a very, very negative view of such features, citing concerns over reliability, high cost, and privacy. Just a year or two ago, there was an
enormous backlash in the firearms community against the Armatix IP1, again, with the consumers citing those concerns. I'd argue that those concerns
were well founded, as the handgun was offered in 22LR only (likely because the electronics couldn't take the recoil of anything else) and cost $1800
versus perhaps $350 for a similar model from several other major US manufacturers. The backlash was so bad that the product was pulled from the market
and I don't think they've tried again.
edit on 20-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)