Gun Rights

Strongly agree

No

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. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence

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. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, as long as the losing party pays all legal fees, it’s our constitutional right to sue anyone for any reason

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. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only dealers

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. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

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. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

Yes, any business should be held liable if the primary use of its product is for illegal activity

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. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.