• PanaX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Based on that logic, ammunition and arms manufacturers should be held liable for damages as well.

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The US has a law to limit the liability of gun manufacturers.

      The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. However, they may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime.

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 hours ago

      More like, if you steal something you are banned from using roads and sidewalks and doors.

      • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        54 minutes ago

        Yeah, sure but to “steal something” is to imply that you’re depriving the original owner use of the thing you stole. This is more like making an exact copy depriving nobody of use of the original thing.

        it’s more like depriving someone use of roads, sidewalks, and doors because they got caught walking out of Kinkos