MooseMan3000

That was what the debate was about. I can't remember the case (help, anyone?), but the manufacturer of a handgun was sued when a kid killed himself unloading the gun. The reasoning was that the safety had to be off to unload the gun. Now ultimately, I believe it was the kid's fault. I don't think the gun company should have been sued for this, but I do think that they should have to conform to standards in manufacture, including the option for the safety to be on or off during loading and unloading.

I do think it was frivolous lawsuit, don't get me wrong. But I also think that the law was written by the gun lobbies, and it conveniently avoids the ultimate issue, which is that gun manufacturers need to be regulated in some fashion. All this law does is make them less accountable for what they do.

Another question for you: do you think the manufacturer of the guns has a responsibility to watch where its guns are sold? Take one example: Manufacturer A makes an inexpensive, effective revolver. Manufacturer A knows that Retailer B buys 1000 of these revolvers a month. Manufacturer A also knows that Retailer B only legitimately sells 300 of those each month. If one of those guns from Retailer B is used in a murder, and it was not sold legitimately by Retailer B, can Manufacturer A be held accountable? Why or why not?