In the USA, gun manufacturers and dealers must be held financially responsible

[coti]

for the devastation wrought by their products.

In every country and society there is a different approach that must be taken to resolve the large-scale issues of their time. In Australia, direct ownership restrictions have reportedly worked quite well to reduce gun violence. However, in this country, because of our particularities, I believe it must made to be against the financial interest of gun manufacturers and dealers to build irresponsibly dangerous weapons or allow such weapons to get into the hands of people who should not have them.

In this country, we have a gun culture supported by an NRA that, protecting its multi-billion dollar industry, politically exploits and manipulates the users of its product to the detriment of our citizens' safety. It is not the guns, but the money behind the guns, that is leading to the unbelievable levels of violence and death here. This is why, in 2005, gun manufacturers got themselves explicitly protected from product liability in the USA through the federal government's "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (PLCAA).

In the USA, banning particular weapons has not worked that well to curb violence, as gunmakers often find ways to manufacture dangerous weapons around the banned specifications. Other direct regulation methods in many ways just further politically entrench and activate fanatical gunowners, as they feel targeted, and may have even damaged progress previously made on other issues.

We need to consider more effective ways of addressing our gun difficulties that avoid paths that have already been, for the most part, unsuccessful. To put a real dent in the mayhem and murder going on daily in our country- and to be politically smarter in addressing the issue- our laws must strike at the results of an out-of-control gun industry. We have to hit manufacturers and dealers in the pocketbook for every drop of blood their products shed.

The NRA and gun manufacturers want to hide behind the 2nd Amendment, a "good guy vs. bad guy" mentality, and the construct of the "responsible gun owner"- indeed, everyone is a "responsible gun owner," until they aren't- in their support for continued gun violence (and sales) in the USA. They want every American gunowner to be insulted and offended by any law directly regulating guns or who buys them. They want to have arguments clouded with contradictory statistics and the spittle and spew of one-issue voters, until reasonable people with more important things to do throw their hands up in defeat.

I say, fine- let them do all of that. Skip arguing with them about the way firearms work. Skip arguing with them about who has access to guns, where guns should be allowed, how the media is contributing to violence, etc., etc. Skip the discussions of hunting, militias and home protection. Skip all of that, and cut to the chase by simply holding those putting guns in the hands of American citizens financially responsible for the results of their decisions.

Let the NRA figure out what is too dangerous a gun to be on the streets of a civilized society- because it's their financial asses on the line if something bad happens with one. Let the NRA decide exactly what constitutes the kind of mental illness should preclude ownership of the products they support. Let the NRA decide just how many dead children they are willing to be sued over, given their revenues. At the moment, the NRA gives a shit about none of these things. But you can damn well bet that, as soon as the money starts disappearing from their coffers, they will.

Let manufacturing or selling a dangerous firearm be one of the surest paths to ruin- for individuals and shareholders- in this country ruled by the almighty dollar. Instead of having endless arguments about the minutiae of guns, model our gun laws along the same lines as the strict product liability laws we already have, and let that figure into what these corporations want to sell, and who they want to sell it to. I expect that such a calculation could profoundly lessen the availability of unreasonably dangerous weapons and accessories in our country.

Obviously, the NRA would argue against such laws to their constituents by telling them they would only raise the prices of the guns and related equipment that they buy. And we should agree with them. We should tell them that yes, they can have their weapons- no one is standing directly in the way of their ability to have fun and protect their families with firearms, or even coming close to violating the 2nd Amendment's protections. But, as part of the deal, they must pay for the damage those weapons inflict on our society.

If they don't want their product held up and demonized in front of a jury as responsible for the death of 20 five-year-olds, they shouldn't be making and selling products with which its so easy to kill five-year-olds.


To lessen the gun violence in our country, we must repeal the PLCAA and replace it with a reasonable strict product liability law for gun manufacturers, and also include some kind of standard of liability for dealers.

Of course, lawmakers would need a snappy marketing term to use in campaigning for such laws. Something Americans would hear easily and respond to.

Oh, I don't know...maybe a "death tax"?

[msongs]

1. require liability insurance for ever gu. does not infringe on the 2A. anybody can still get a gun

for the most part

[EX500rider]

5. Liability insurance never covers illegal acts.

You car insurance won't cover you mowing down a crowd of people on purpose.
And since accidental deaths due to firearms are rare compared to the number of firearms liability insurance for firearms is cheap....and available from the NRA so making it mandatory will just increase their income.

[Kirk Lover]

71. It still seems crazy that I pay extra on my insurance because of a dog but a gun hanging around...

no problem!

[EX500rider]

78. Because this:

"According to the Center For Disease Control (CDC), approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur in the United States every year, and 900,000 of those bites become infected."

Compared to that gun accidents in the house are rare.

[fescuerescue]

65. NRA would love that

Since they are the #1 sellers of firearms liability insurance in the US right now.

[AlexSFCA]

2. absolutely, like tabaco industry, manufacturers are liable

as well as distributors

[Progressive dog]

3. Good idea which is why the NRA

bought and paid for a law to prevent it.
"A legal shield written by Congress to benefit the firearms industry is posing unexpected hurdles for parents in Newtown, Conn., and victims of other mass shootings, who want to use the courts to hold gun makers accountable and push them to adopt stricter safety standards.

The law, approved in 2005 after intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, grants gun companies rare protection from the kind of liability suits that have targeted many other consumer product manufacturers."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nra-backed-federal-limits-on-gun-lawsuits-frustrate-victims-their-attorneys/2013/01/31/a4f101da-69b3-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html?utm_term=.5d97f8e3b40d

I won't mention the candidate in the Democratic primary for President who had voted for the NRA's special protections.

[EX500rider]

6. "the kind of liability suits that have targeted many other consumer product manufacturers"

Which other consumer product manufactures have been targeted in lawsuits regarding the illegal use of their products?

You can still sue firearm companies for actual product defects that cause harm.

[Progressive dog]

7. When a law is written to create an exemption

then there was a reason for that exemption. The NRA didn't buy the lawmakers for nothing.

[EX500rider]

8. yes there was a reason

A attempt by many cities and municipalities to bankrupt firearm companies through junk lawsuits.
Lawmakers took a not unsurprising dim view to this back door attempt to subvert 2nd amendment rights.
The same as they would do to a attempt to subvert the 1st by making paper or ink unavailable thru backdoor attempts to put those producers out of business.

[Progressive dog]

10. So the killing continues, the gun companies and

their NRA spokesmen profit. Any moron knows that the 2nd amendment was written when the militia had muskets. Even the most conservative person would cringe at pretending that the authors of that amendment meant that it applied to whatever weapons might be developed in the future. The NRA can have muskets, but beyond that, the 2nd amendment has no meaning.
You can be arrested for screaming fire in a crowded theater. Your first amendment rights have limits and so should your 2nd.

[EX500rider]

13. The 2nd does have limits.

And you are free to push further restrictions which will pass if they are popular with the voters.

[Progressive dog]

17. Which is exactly what the OP asks for

Most gun restrictions are popular with voters by large majorities and still fail to pass. With the psychopath in the Presidency, it is unlikely that anything sane will pass.

[EX500rider]

20. No, the OP is asking for the power to sue companies for things out of their power to prevent.

Same way I can't sue Ford if I mow down a bunch of people in a Mustang.

[coti]

23. It is NOT out of their power to not create powerful killing machines.

It's a matter of degrees, and the responsibility needs to be placed in the hands of those making money off of the collateral blood of our children to make their products not so powerful as to create undue risk to public health, and to make sure they are not selling those products to people who want to hurt others.

[EX500rider]

24. The bottom line is as long as it is legal and there is a demand..

...someone will meet that demand.
You have to approach it from a new laws angle if you want change.

[Progressive dog]

31. Other companies can be sued for the same things

and no one has the nerve to demand exemptions. The cigarette companies were sued. If your Ford mustang came with a people catcher to push pedestrians out of the way, they'd be sued and rightly so. But Ford doesn't sell products intended to kill people. Ford also added seat belts, air bags, crumble zones, gas tanks that don't explode as easily, and other safety features. The gun manufacturers added features to make guns more dangerous.

[EX500rider]

32. Ford adds government mandated safety features.

Gun companies will too if mandated. Or if there is a public demand for the features.

[Progressive dog]

35. What bullshit, gun companies

are not normal corporations. They sell products designed to kill and market them as designed to kill. If they did not have an exemption, juries of their peers would make them pay. They are monsters.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Not out of their power to prevent.

[EX500rider]

54. If firearms are legal to purchase and they are..

...preventing someone who wants to murder someone with them would be done exactly how by the manufacturer?
As long as they are legal and their is a demand they will be available.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Sorry. I'm done with people making excuses for child sacrifice.

Talk to someone else about it.

[EX500rider]

56. Yes, that's what I am for "child sacrifice"...lol...good one

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Yup. Had enough of it.

[coti]

9. Isn't shooting people the intended use of an AR-15?

Why would it be such a surprise that someone used a gun manufactured to kill people, to kill people? Are the manufacturers unaware that, under most circumstances in civilian life, killing people is illegal?

[EX500rider]

11. No, most people you will find buy them for target shooting or investment..

...or possible home defense (which is not illegal)

How many rifles are in private hands? Millions?
How many people are killed with rifles every year? (350+-)
So if less then 1% of rifles are used to kill anyone I would argue that is not their primary purpose or use....(unless gun owners are doing it wrong?)

[coti]

16. I would imagine 99% of US Marines, similarly, have not used their M-16 to kill anyone.

Would you also say their weapons are not intended for the purpose of killing?

The specifications of the weapon- as its ancestors were created for the military- are meant to make the AR-15 a fast, powerful, human-killing machine. That is the rifle's purpose.

[EX500rider]

22. The Marines are issued M-16's (actually M-4's) in case they have to kill someone.

Civilians on the other hand buy rifles to hunt or target shoot or investment or in the case they need it for legal self defense.
So those were the intended purposes.

I can buy a race spec Ferrari but that does not mean I am taking it racing. it's purpose it what ever I buy it for, be that Blvd cruising or driving to work.

[coti]

25. Self-defense, i.e., killing someone. That's the purpose.

Both target-shooting and hunting can be carried out with guns with much less power, without semi-automatic fire, and with a smaller magazine.

What the heck was ever wrong with a plain old 12-gauge for home defense, anyway?

See, the great thing about just allowing the manufacturers to be sued is that you and I don't have to debate these issues anymore. It incentivizes THEM to determine for themselves what it's REALLY worth to put such a powerful fucking weapon into the hands of a "responsible gun owner."

[EX500rider]

27. Actually hunting firearms are more powerful.

The AR-15 round is to weak to hunt deer in most states.

And I don't agree with suing companies for the illegal use of their products, especially when they sold it to a dealer, not the end user.

If you want changes in a Constitutionally protected right you will have to do it through legislation, not back door lawsuits.

[coti]

33. I'm not advocating for anything backdoor, I think they should be held explicitly responsible through

some legislated standard of liability, by Congress. Just like Congress specifically exempted them from liability standards other manufacturers are held to, simply because....the product they make is MORE likely to be used for criminal purposes?

Is that your argument? How does it make any sense that a manufacturer should be LESS liable for harm their product does (compared to other products) when the product is MORE likely to be used in a way that harms others- criminal or not? If the product is inherently more dangerous- and, in fact, is often specifically designed to hurt and kill others- shouldn't that be a tipoff that the manufacturer should be placed under more scrutiny for liability, not less?

[EX500rider]

34. Gun manufactures are liable for dangerous defects in production like any other company.

They are not liable for misuse by 3rd parties.

[coti]

39. As a reasonably intelligent person, you must be aware that this is not an honest argument.

Just as the gun manufacturers (and some dealers) are aware that SOME- maybe even a small percentage- of the guns they sell will be used to completely destroy American families.

[Straw Man]

58. Reasonable intelligence.

Just as the gun manufacturers (and some dealers) are aware that SOME- maybe even a small percentage- of the guns they sell will be used to completely destroy American families.

And some alcohol manufacturers are aware the SOME consumers of their product will drive drunk and kill people, as will the manufacturers of the cars they use to do it, etc. Should they be held legally liable?

[coti]

61. Dram shop.

Barowners are held liable for serving drinks to customers who then go out and kill others with a car. It helps make barowners think twice about serving drunk customers.

It's a matter of public policy. If public policy will be advanced, and our country will be significantly safer, by holding the manufacturers of a tool often made to kill people financially responsible for those deaths, then yes, it's the right and just thing to do.

[hardluck]

62. How is that applicable to gun manufacturers?

Gun manufacturers typically do not sell to the end user but instead to a retailer who then resells to the end user. Your dram shop scenario would place potentially liability on the gun shop (the bar owner) not the gun manufacturer (the distillery).

Further, the dram shop law typically only applies to the situation where the customer is obviously intoxicated. Translating that to a gun sale scenario, such liability would only apply where the gun customer obviously is a prohibited person. However, if the gun store does a background check, which the customer passes, then the gun customer is not ostensibly a prohibited person (e.g., obviously intoxicated).

The only scenario it would be potentially applicable is in a private sale and then liability would only apply to the gun seller, not the gun manufacturer, and in such a scenario, the gun seller is most likely judgment proof anyways unless the liability falls under their homeowners insurance or some umbrella policy, etc.

[Straw Man]

63. Dram shop law applies to the server of alcohol, not the manufacturer.

But you knew that.

[coti]

67. The point is that the "I didn't do it myself, I only enabled it" argument doesn't always matter, and

you brought up drunk drivers. It's a case involving alcohol, where banning alcohol previously did not work (as banning guns may not be a reasonable possibility), and where dram shop laws have had a positive effect on drunk driving fatality incidence ( ahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4602396/ ).


As I already said, in products liability it is often a matter of whether public policy is best served by holding the manufacturer responsible for the results of its product. In this case, it would be.

[Straw Man]

68. Dram shop law is not about product liability.

As I already said, in products liability it is often a matter of whether public policy is best served by holding the manufacturer responsible for the results of its product. In this case, it would be.

Dram shop law is not about a faulty product. It's about the dispenser of that product exercising judgment on to whom it is dispensed. The appropriate corollary would be to a gunshop owner who knowingly sells to prohibited persons or straw purchasers. That's not what these suits are about.

The notion that gun manufacturers have product liability for murders committed with their guns suggests that they should be marketing guns that are incapable of hurting anyone ... which is, of course, ludicrous.

[mythology]

14. They could make guns safer

By refusing to install biometric locks, reduce magazine size, microstamping and I'm sure there are others, gun manufacturers are intentionally selling a product that is unsafe.

How is that different than car manufacturers refusing to install seat belts and other safety equipment? Car companies were sued for that and the resulting pressure from groups like Nader's Raiders led to laws mandating real safety measures. Gun manufacturers shouldn't be exempt from the same given they make a product that kills so many people.

[EX500rider]

15. Car makers install safety devices due to govt mandates.

If you have the votes to force the govt to pass gun mandates then by all means do so.

[Straw Man]

59. Safer?

Biometric locks are a wash, since they could potentially malfunction, rendering the weapon unusable for self-defense in a crisis. Reduced magazine size puts the legal self-defense user at a disadvantage. Microstamping's ancestor, "ballistic fingerprinting" has had no demonstrable success in the states where it has been done, and has been abandoned. The only reason it has been brought back in the microstamping incarnation is because it will put additional financial burdens on manufacturers and consumers of firearms. If you doubt the efficacy of ballistic fingerprinting, consider that in the ten years that it was practiced in NY State, it did not solve a single crime.

Guns have become far safer in recent years. Drop safety is a case in point. Handguns that can be disassembled without the trigger being pulled are another. Loaded chamber indicators, magazine safeties, etc., and so on. I'm all for measures that make guns safer without making them less effective. People deserve adequate self-defense tools.

[aikoaiko]

4. Im fine with the PLCAA because it protects

the people’s access to a civil liberty.

[coti]

12. Really, it just protects the manufacturers of products that are genuinely made for the purpose

of killing people, and often do.

It should be their responsibility to make sure their products are not too powerful for responsible purposes and that they don't sell them to people who want to use them to hurt others.

[aikoaiko]

18. Actually, it is highly unlikely that any given firearm will be used to kill people.

Yes, most are designed for the potential to be lethal, but most are never used in that capacity. That is why they are good for self-defense or militia duty.

It is not the job of manufacturers or dealers to arbitrarily determine who should or shouldn't be allowed to keep or bear arms.

That is the job of the government (federal and/or state) to determine who is prohibited.

Manufacturers and dealers are held accountable for following the law.

[coti]

21. They're putting these products into the civilian population and need to be held responsible for that

Just like drug companies, car manufacturers, appliance companies, etc., all have their own liability laws to incentivize them to make their products safer to the public.

[EX500rider]

19. Gun manufactures sell guns to gun dealers.

It is their responsibility to make sure the purchaser meets government standards/laws for purchases. Which they generally do and they can be sued or put out of business if they don't.

"Not to powerful for responsible purposes" Like what, nurf guns? Squirt guns?
Since one of the legal uses is self defense they have to be capable of incapacitating someone. Or if used for hunting they have to capable of killing large animals.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. The right to human sacrifice.

[aikoaiko]

53. Not really a right. But carry on.

[Hoyt]

26. The problem with PLCAA is that it allows gun marketeers to market their guns to sick people in the

form of ads like this and not be held accountable just like cigarette manufacturers:


















https://www.pinterest.com/pin/231724343301715720/



?preset=article

[EX500rider]

30. Whats your issue with the last ad, the Barrett ad?

The gun too scary looking or something? lol

[Hoyt]

41. I was trying to get the "Hell or Highwater" ad that was aimed at you guys who worship these rifles,

but, you can only put a link up for it. I guess Barrett knows it's a bit over the line.

But since you asked, what's wrong with it is that you gunners don't need weapons like that in our society.

I assume since you only inquired about that one, you see the problem with the other ones. If so, how do you justify your support of these weapons?


I think my point is clear that gun manufacturers, dealers, and even private collectors of these weapons are complicit in our gun problem, especially when they support laws that don't allow suits against companies that develop these ads, research what excites gunners' baser instincts, contribute millions to lobbyist like the NRA to extort government support for this crap, and probably worse. Not only that, gunners are fine with prohibiting agencies like the CDC from even studying the problem.

But like one of the gungeoneers is so fond of saying, I'm sure you guys will just "carry on."

[EX500rider]

43. Since Barrett .50cals are rarely if ever used in homicides it doesn't bother me.

People don't need 800hp cars either but they can still buy them.

[Hoyt]

44. A year or so, the common refrain from the Gungeon was so-called "assault rifles" were seldom used

in crime. Well that is now certifiably gunner BS.

Fact is, there is no reason for you guys to own these type weapons.

[EX500rider]

46. Actually rifles are very seldom used in homicides...no BS there.

Pistols 9,000+ killed per year
ALL rifles, 350+-, assault rifles even less.

[Hoyt]

47. Tell to those kids who have the guts to walk among millions without a gun tucked in their pants.

[EX500rider]

48. Tell them simple facts? sure...

The fact is pistols kill more then 25 people for every person who gets shot by any type of rifle.

Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech used just a pistol to kill 32 people and wounded 17, getting rid of rifles won't do much to stop school shootings, just change the means.

I think concentrating on why instead of how might be a better long term goal to save lives. ymmv.

[dlk]

28. The Idea that Gun Manufactures Should Ever be Immune from Liability Litigation is Beyond Corrupt!

Every Senator and Representative who voted for gun manufacturers' immunity needs to be voted out of office! They are too corrupt to sensibly represent us.

[AzureCrest]

38. Gun manufacturers are not immune to liability litigation,

they are not held responsible for misuse of their products by third parties.

[Hoyt]

42. But they should be because they contribute to the problem and have spent millions associating guns

with manhood, solving problems, compensating for inadequacies, etc.

Cigarette manufacturers were fined billions for the way they sold their product, their lobbying efforts, and the like. Guns should be subject to the same thing.

[sharedvalues]

29. Yes yes yes yes yes. Worked for tobacco. For asbestos.

Josh Marshall on allowing liability for gun manufacturers:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/liability-as-a-part-of-gun-policy-reform

[quartz007]

36. Gun owners must be required to purchase

liability insurance BEFORE buying a gun. Heck every auto driver has liability insurance. Car accidents kill 100,000 people in an average year. Gun deaths should have similar liability insurance requirement.

[ManiacJoe]

64. Insurance does not cover illegal acts.

[quartz007]

66. Point is, gun purchases will be registered

if insurance must be purchased. That may stop shooters like the one at Parkland.

And correct, nothing will stop law breakers except very long prison sentences when caught. Banning guns will not apply to law breakers. Murder is banned, crack-cocaine is banned, but there is no shortage of either.

[hack89]

69. Adam Lanza's weapon was registered.

how did that work out?

[quartz007]

70. He probably did his shooting in a

gun free zone? Who said any procedure will work 100%?
Every common sense step will give only incremental benefit.
Europe has strict gun laws & the Paris was not spared from gun massacre.

[hack89]

72. But how does registration stop gun violence?

Criminals won’t register theirs and crazy people don’t care.

[quartz007]

73. Correct, EXISTING guns in criminal hands

most likely will not registered. But forcing registration and background check requirements at time of new purchase is a step in the right direction.

The ONLY way guns in possession of criminals will diminish if there is a 10 year mandatory prison if caught with an unregistered gun, and 25 years mandatory prison if caught committing a crime with a gun.

[hack89]

74. Actually the supreme court has ruled that felons cannot be forced to register

their guns due to 5th Amendment issues.

How do you account for the 400,000,000 unregistered guns in America?

[quartz007]

75. 2nd Amendment in existence

since December 15, 1791. In 227 years millions of guns were purchased and no way to change history.

[hack89]

76. Why not skip registration and simply hammer people for gun crimes?

Lot simpler, cheaper and would not antagonize a broad swath of the American electorate but would have the same impact on gun violence.

[quartz007]

77. Simple

Today's un-registered gun buyers can be tomorrow's criminals. No way to hammer future criminals. Easy access to gun purchase is pathway to future crime.

[hack89]

79. So will you be using the war on drugs as your model?

Or perhaps go old school and recreate Prohibition?

I would suggest you look up compliance rates with registration laws in CT and NY before you get too excited.

[quartz007]

80. Simple again...

boy,your questions are so simple to answer...

Most illegal drugs are imported. Best way to curb illegal imports is at the entry points. Check all cargo coming in with trained dogs. Protect the borders with camera's, aircraft surveillance and a tall fence.

And again I repeat....offenders and law breakers should receive mandatory long prison time. A 20 year prison sentence is a good deterrent for most people.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. "Protect the borders with...a tall fence." Now where have we heard that before?

[quartz007]

84. Israel built one

and reduced terrorism overnight by 99%.

[LiberalFighter]

37. The NRA supports gun ownership for all because it benefits gun manufacturers.

[Jarqui]

40. I've read some disputes/debates on gun studies

But it really precedes that

How the NRA Suppressed Gun Violence Research
https://www.ucsusa.org/suppressing-research-effects-gun-violence#.Wrbxbi7wZtE

Before the FDA will release a drug for public consumption (normally), the idea is that there are medical studies done to verify the safety and effectiveness, etc of the potentially new drug. Like anything human, once in a while, even the studies are wrong but most of the time, they get it right.

With guns, we've got this backwards. Guns in the above argument on studies can be sold to nearly anyone until (maybe if the GOP don't block them) studies show otherwise. Again, i realize there's limited truth to that because the NRA/GOP want their guns no matter what.

But why can't we turn it around and ban guns until we see convincing studies that they're safe - like we would with any drug through the FDA. Well, we know it is very unlikely that we'll ever see such studies showing guns are safe ....

i realize the fallacy of the suggestion even though it is logical: the gun nuts are not rational people. You cannot rationalize with irrational people.

I'm just pointing out another way of looking at it that doesn't make sense. An AR!5 would never get through a FDA like study.

[HockeyMom]

45. Parents should be criminally charged

if their Minor child, be they 7 or 17, gets their unsecured gun and kills another.

[coti]

49. Largely agreed, California does have some laws along these lines, protecting kids

from guns around the house.

[OneBro]

50. Congress more interested in regulating sex, not guns.

Congress refuses to hold gun makers liable but will now hold websites like Craigslist liable. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-eulogy-for-craigslists-casual-encounters-and-all-the-sex-i-found-there_us_5ab52083e4b0decad04989ab

Ironically, a study suggests that Craigslist's erotic services site made it SAFER for sex workers. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/craigslists-erotic-services-site-appears-to-have-reduced_us_59df8778e4b0cee7b9549e66

[Lee-Lee]

81. What, exactly, would you like to see changed

What now that they are not liable for do you think they should be?

And how would that change translate into other products from a liability standpoint?

[tonedevil]

82. So you would sue Ford...

if someone drove an Explorer into a crowd?