Addressing the immunity aspect as simply as I can:

If someone drives a truck through a parade, should the families of the people killed have grounds to sue the vehicle manufacturer?

If there is a flaw in the vehicle and the throttle of a parade vehicle locks open, should the families of the people killed have grounds to sue the vehicle manufacturer?

Look up the Jennings lawsuit. That situation matches the second scenario and resulted in a judgment of 50 or so million IIRC. There should be immunity to prevent the suit from being filled in the first scenario to prevent harassment of the manufacturers of guns or those assault bats made from aluminum.

I see what you are saying, I do. But I still don't like the idea of immunity... but there are few absolutes. I think it depends on how the laws are phrased.

Though I question the need - the fact is, the frivolous lawsuits trope is mostly false.

There are some small manufacturers that could be destroyed with one lawsuit. Sometimes, like the Jennings suit, that's the correct outcome.

Some of my shooting buddies are lawyers, and they have given me a glimpse of how immunity isn't always immunity. I'm pretty satisfied that someone with "standing" can get justice. There's also whole topics like "intent". Intent is quite a rabbit hole!

I definitely won't try to talk you out of your misgivings about immunity. I totally agree that it's a tricky thing, and in the absence of immunity, there are still remedies available to make a frivolous lawsuit painful for the party that started it. That's my usual response when an anti-gun friend says something about "suing the gun industry into oblivion".

When a fellow gun person talks about "blanket immunity", I start asking questions about the 230 immunity and social media problems. If I can get them to go, "Ummm," then they're thinking. That's my goal. Mostly.

I can appreciate that. It's a complicated world out there.

Please mention where I mentioned immunity.

I just think that when a wife throws the toaster in the bath tub with her husband that the manufacturer should be held liable.

But explicitly, but you said "be allowed to sue". If you aren't allowed to sue, they have immunity.

Do car and toasters enjoy immunity from frivolous and unlawful use of their product. Maybe not, but those cases would not even be taken up by the court.

But, there is a relentless push by anti-gun groups to allow people to sue gun manufacturers because individuals use guns illegally.

So what is your tack on my point?

I see your point. The opposite side of that is what Texas tried to do with it's abortion ban. Allow anyone doing it to be sued by anyone or even drivers who facilitate by dropping someone off.

Honestly, I don't think gun manufacturers should be held liable for selling legal weapons due to how they are used. I know some of the argument is that some of the gun manufacturers advertising and marketing practices are shady, but I'm not really up to speed on that. I know I've seen NRA TV and I could probably argue that if that fear mongering is being funded by gun manufacturers, they may have some responsibility for feeding paranoia... But even that seems weak.