We can sue car makers, but not those who make and market Assault Weapons?

Only crazy people shoot others, or buy Ford Pintos, so there is something in common here.

The authorities, local and Federal, were well aware of this guy. Even his family warned them.
This is a recurring theme in quite a lot of these shootings.

Common denominator with virtually all of the mass shooters.....(mental illness)

Political tyrants......(It's the gun)

You can't make up this type of stupid...

I started my career at VA in Medical Administration at a VA Hospital with a large Mental Health component. We had patients committed for short and long periods back then. We were governed in our locked wards by state laws. Those laws have weakened over the years, and locked beds have decreased. In most states, simply making a threat is not sufficient to trigger involuntary treatment. If you want Mental Health professionals or police to be more aggressive, change the laws.

I am not "anti-gun," per se. But, people who understand why we don't allow drunk 12-year-olds to drive, have bought the NRA propaganda. Banning "Assault Weapons," or requiring increased screening, would still allow access by most people to a large menu of arms. Short of that sane approach, let us sue irresponsible people and take the profit out of their recklessness.

Yes, I know…you’ve told us all, everyone, your life story before (***yawn***).

No.
Howzabout going after the INDIVIDUAL perpetrators of the individual crime.
I know, as a committed communist you are all about the COLLECTIVE and like to assign “collective” guilt to any and every one even remotely involved with the gun ( excluding the actual person who did the killing).
But that is not how we used to do things in this once great and mighty country.

With logic like that, where is your outcry to ban hammers?

I agree. Only criminals should have those guns. Dork.

Try to argue with the 3rd amendment and the right to own guns

On August 27, 2023 "Stastista Research," published numbers concerning Mass Shootings in America 1982-2023. Some interesting numbers emerged. From 1982 and 2005 folks could sue gun makers for harm done by people using their products. For three of those years (1983,1985 and 2002 there were zero mass shootings in America. For 13 of the years only one mass shooting took place and the highest number of shootings was 5 in 1999.

The numbers of Mass Shootings in America since gun makers got immunity from lawsuits has increased greatly. In the 18-years 2005-2023, nine years have seen six or more mass shootings with five of those years having ten or more events

Has less accountability been a factor? For ten years (1994-2004) Assault Weapons were not sold in America. The numbers of mass shootings are similar for twenty-year period lawsuits were allowed. The remarkable increases in events came after it became legal again to sell Assault Weapons, and gun makers were granted immunity from product liability lawsuits.

The umbrella protection against legal liability by gun makers is not a Second Amendment right but from a law the NRA got passed. After the thoughts and prayers have been conveyed, put guns on an even legal par with other dangerous products. Give the Next-of-Kins back their right to seek legal redress for lack of proper safeguards by these salespeople of slaughter.

Your analogy only works if the firearms exploded when they were discharged. The firearms worked as designed.
The fault or blame lies entirely with the perpetrator, not the implement.
In other words , the only way your analogy even comes close to being relevant is if people were using the ford pinto to run over masses of people.

The Pinto did what it was designed to do, also. The problem is it was marketed as a safe car. The AR-15 and other Assault Weapons are not marketed as "Preferred by Mass Murderers."

No. It did NOT!!
Unless, of course, it was DESIGNED to explode.

The rest of your bullshit is just that.

The Pinto was deigned to be lightweight resulting in its structural weakness. By themselves, they are not a problem. Only when they were abused by having people crash into them did they explode. Assault Rifles are, designed to kill many people in a rapid-fire style. By themselves they are not a problem. When someone abuses them and uses them for mass murders, they become a problem.

If people can sue Ford for damage done by a product that was not caused by the car or its customer by violation of any law or construction regulation, they should be able to sue gun makers. No other product enjoys this protection, why should guns?

Exactly.
You go after the someone.
Not the collective.

The gun functioned the it was designed.
The Ford Pinto was not designed to explode, it was designed to convey people from one locale to another (sans detonation). Placement of the gas tank, I believe, was the issue and the design was faulty. The company was rightfully sued.

According to your flawed logic, why not sue distilleries for the actions of drunk drivers?

No…your hypothesis is totally wrong. It’s just the same old blatant attempt to find any way you can to take the availability of firearms away from the individual.

Have you not noticed the advertisements from distilleries, encouraging people to not drink and drive? Why do you suppose they do that? People have successfully sued bars and restaurants who served alcohol to people who then drove while impaired. Distilleries are careful about how they market their product.

I have not advocated taking firearms away from people. There are people who should not have access to any weapon, let alone an assault rifle. Every day in America a Veteran voluntarily surrenders at least one weapon at a mental health facility. As the Administrative Officer of the Day (night manager) at a VA Medical Center I have locked up, in my safe, weapons surrendered to me in the past, Systems designed to keep us safe work remarkably well most of the time.

Accountability is important. People who advertise "Unleash the Fury," "Forces of Opposition Bow Down," and "Consider your Man Card Reissued," are not marketing to 'Hunters." Because they are legally immune from civil prosecution, they can appeal to peoples' aggressive tendencies in selling mechanisms for mass murder. They need to be accountable to victims of people "unleashing the fury." Allow them to be sued, like anyone else can be.

Have you not seen the ads by gun manufacturers advocating training and gun safety?
Unleash the fury?? What are you babbling about?

Stop trying to convince me… you won’t because you are wrong.

I Bing Searched for Assault Weapon Ads. "Unleash the Fury," was the first one that came up, I will never try to convince you of anything. I understand that any changes must come from someone higher in your chain of command.

God

Don't blame him for your shortcomings. Besides, haven't you read? Christianity is "Woke." That Hippie in the robes with the long hair and beard wants you to forgive others, love your neighbors, feed hungry people and welcome strangers. God and his Son are downright "Anti-MAGA."