There are several points that seem commonly missed or resisted.
A firearm can be compared to other objects.
The automotive analogy or comparison indicates the problem with product liability exposure for firearm manufacturers simply for having produced a properly functioning firearm. While an automotive manufacturer may have exposure to product liability for an item that does not work properly, the tactic of exposing firearms manufacturers to frivolous products liability litigation as a political tactic to bankrupt them is a real danger not faced by automotive manufacturers. There is no incoherence in legislatively isolating firearms manufacturers from a class of products liability suits that categorically lack merit.
While firearms and automobiles are both subjects of heavy regulation, the regulatory focus on automobiles is not on reducing their utility. We do not see arbitrary limitations on passenger capacity or top speed or which plastic bits should be fit by the manufacturer onto the car.
While something of a tangent, it is interesting to note that several studies have concluded that as cars become mechanically safer, drivers reassess their risks and adjust their behavior, driving more dangerously. Without touching the merits of automobile safety regulation, we can recognize that people are not static quantities, and their behavior can change in ways not foreseen by the regulatory enthusiast.
If shooting were regulated the way automobiles are, we would have ample public ranges available for use without charge, high school instruction on safety and use which instruction would be designed to lead to possession of a permit, and government incentives to assist in the purchase of "green" ammunition. You might even be ticketed for not having a silencer.
There is nothing illegitimate about noting the special pleading of a citation to the risk of criminal use of firearms and the resulting harm while simultaneously tolerating the risks necessarily associated with other routine activities. Criminal use of a firearm or an automobile does not indicate a defect in the design of either and is not a sound basis for a product liability suit or a public policy on either.
A firearm can be compared to other objects.
The automotive analogy or comparison indicates the problem with product liability exposure for firearm manufacturers simply for having produced a properly functioning firearm. While an automotive manufacturer may have exposure to product liability for an item that does not work properly, the tactic of exposing firearms manufacturers to frivolous products liability litigation as a political tactic to bankrupt them is a real danger not faced by automotive manufacturers. There is no incoherence in legislatively isolating firearms manufacturers from a class of products liability suits that categorically lack merit.
While firearms and automobiles are both subjects of heavy regulation, the regulatory focus on automobiles is not on reducing their utility. We do not see arbitrary limitations on passenger capacity or top speed or which plastic bits should be fit by the manufacturer onto the car.
While something of a tangent, it is interesting to note that several studies have concluded that as cars become mechanically safer, drivers reassess their risks and adjust their behavior, driving more dangerously. Without touching the merits of automobile safety regulation, we can recognize that people are not static quantities, and their behavior can change in ways not foreseen by the regulatory enthusiast.
If shooting were regulated the way automobiles are, we would have ample public ranges available for use without charge, high school instruction on safety and use which instruction would be designed to lead to possession of a permit, and government incentives to assist in the purchase of "green" ammunition. You might even be ticketed for not having a silencer.
There is nothing illegitimate about noting the special pleading of a citation to the risk of criminal use of firearms and the resulting harm while simultaneously tolerating the risks necessarily associated with other routine activities. Criminal use of a firearm or an automobile does not indicate a defect in the design of either and is not a sound basis for a product liability suit or a public policy on either.
Last edited: