Why not try a "free market" approach to gun safety in the USA?
If parents, of dead children, could sue weapons makers, these corporations would immediately make efforts to make sure their weapons didn't end up in the wrong hands!!!
Why is there this socialistic protections of this industry? Why not let the "market decide?"
So you want someone to be able to sue a company for misuse of their product?
If you drive your car into a pedestrian, should that pedestrian be allowed to sue Toyota? Why?
If someone buys a baseball bat and uses it to murder their neighbor, is Walmart at fault? Should Rawlings be held accountable?
Say I decide I'm just gonna drink some bleach today, or eat a Tide pod, should I then be able to file a lawsuit against Clorox and Tide because I'm a dumb ass that misused their product?
If my car explodes while I'm just driving it, then Ford is responsible and liable. If my car explodes because I drained the oil and went drag racing, then who is responsible for that?
Gun manufacturers can be and are held liable for faulty products. They are not held liable for the misuse of their product, just like any other company.
The misuse of products does not and should not open a company to lawsuits, whether they manufacture cleaning supplies, cars, or guns. Allowing lawsuits simply for manufacturing a product, that a hundred million people manage to use safely by the way, is absolutely and entirely a backdoor way to eliminate gun manufacturers through bankruptcy.
I guess you disagree with their assertion that the gun industry is immune from lawsuits?
To answer some of your examples:
Product liability is a complex field and allows for almost anyone to sue anyone else.
Gun manufacturers and a few other industries are exempt from such civil lawsuits.
Gun manufactures would only go bankrupt, if they had marketing practices that did nothing to ensure their weapons and ammo don't get in the wrong hands.
I don't think the gun manufacturers are quite the incompetent business people you claim they are. I think they would adapt, if they played by the same rules everyone else does...they'd figure it out.
The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to manufacturer and distribute weapons of war to civilians. I re-read my pocket Constitution twice, honest.
I do. Because they're not. They can be, and have successfully been, sued for a variety of reasons. They are also not immune to lawsuits stemming from gross negligence in supplying firearms.
The law is specifically in response to lawsuits specifically intended to do exactly what I said, bankrupt gun manufacturers. They sell a Constitutionally protected product with a wide variety of legal uses... but not to consumers. Firearms are sold to licensed dealers who then sell them retail.
There are arguments to be made for dealer liability, in very narrow circumstances.
And SCOTUS disagrees with you that 2A doesn't apply to what you're calling "weapons of war." There's a distinct legal difference between actual "weapons of war," such as the M16 and civilian variants such as the AR15. Legally distinct meaning SCOTUS has explicitly separated the two platforms in their official ruling. Going even further, SCOTUS explicitly considers tasers to be "in common use" with around 200,000 in civilian use and protected by the 2nd Amendment. There's quite a few more AR15s than that.
PLCAA is a good law that protects a controversial, but fundamentally legal and protected, industry from lawsuits intended specifically to damage the industry for existing.
It's funny.
You acknowledge the PLCAA, yet continue to blather on that the industry can be sued. This law shields manufactures from most liability and negligence claims.
You say there is no such protection, then you say oh, wait, the protection they get is gooooooooood?!?!?!?
Which is it?
https://www.thenation.com/article/this-bill-would-strip-legal-immunity-from-the-gun-industry/
Alright, so you have no idea what PLCAA actually does or why it's necessary.
Maybe you should read the actual bill instead of letting someone else, with an obvious bias, tell you what it does.
Maybe you should also read about some of the lawsuits brought against manufacturers for actual free market and product issues, rather than for simply existing.
Maybe you should also realize that eliminating the means by which a right is exercised means eliminating that right.
Hey, look, I didn't even have to weirdly make three separate replies. Do some research, because it's very clear that you haven't.
The industry is NOT part of the Second Amendment. This industry does NOT have the right to do what the fuck they want. This industry is NOT mentioned in the Second Amendment, nor did the Supreme Court re-write the Constitution to give them Constitutional protection.
The NRA did that work through Congress.
Individual gun OWNERSHIP is protected under the Constitution...not indiscriminate production and distribution of guns.
I simply believe that free enterprise and the free market are a better solution than relying upon government/socialistic interference.
If the CEO's are as incompetent as you fear, there are many qualified CEOs in America who could handle the challenges of a true free market.