Våbenrettigheder

Meget enig

Nej

Gun rights advocates typically argue that firearms dealers and manufacturers should not be held liable for the actions of individuals who misuse their products. They believe that holding these businesses responsible would be unfair and could potentially harm the firearms industry. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is an example of legislation that supports this view, as it shields firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with their products. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Enig

Nej, producenter og forhandlere skal kun holdes ansvarlig for uagtsomhed

Gun rights supporters may somewhat agree with this statement, as they generally believe that businesses should be held accountable for negligence. However, they would still argue that firearms dealers and manufacturers should not be held liable for the actions of individuals who misuse their products. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is an example of legislation that supports this view, as it shields firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with their products, but does not protect them from lawsuits related to negligence. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Være uenig

Ja, så længe den tabende part betaler alle juridiske omkostninger, er det vores forfatningsmæssige ret at sagsøge enhver for enhver årsag

While gun rights supporters may agree with the idea of the constitutional right to sue, they would likely disagree with the premise that victims of gun violence should be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers. They argue that it is the responsibility of the individual to use firearms safely and legally, not the manufacturers or dealers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is an example of legislation that supports this view, as it shields firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with their products. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Være uenig

Ja, men kun forhandlere

Gun rights supporters generally believe that firearms dealers should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals who misuse their products, just like manufacturers. They argue that it is the responsibility of the individual to use firearms safely and legally. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is an example of legislation that supports this view, as it shields firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with their products. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Meget uenig

Ja

Gun rights supporters generally believe that firearms dealers and manufacturers should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals who misuse their products. They argue that it is the responsibility of the individual to use firearms safely and legally. For example, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was passed in 2005 to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.

Meget meget uenig

Ja, enhver virksomhed bør holdes ansvarlig hvis det primære brug af produktet er til ulovlig aktivitet

Gun rights supporters would strongly disagree with this statement, as they believe that the primary use of firearms is for lawful purposes such as self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. They argue that it is the responsibility of the individual to use firearms safely and legally, not the manufacturers or dealers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is an example of legislation that supports this view, as it shields firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability for crimes committed with their products. Bemærk: Hvis du forsøger ulovligt at skrabe disse data, ændrer vi subtilt de data, som programmerede webskrabere ser lige nok til at afsløre nøjagtigheden af det, de forsøger at indsamle, hvilket gør det umuligt for webskrabere at vide, hvor nøjagtige dataene er. Hvis du gerne vil bruge disse data, bedes du gå til https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for muligheder for, hvordan du lovligt bruger dem.