system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Holding firearm manufacturers financially liable for crimes is complete nonsense

I don't see how it makes any sense at all. Do we hold doctors or pharmaceutical companies liable for the \~60,000 Americans that die from their drugs every year (\~6 times more than gun murders btw)? Car companies for the 40,000 car accidents?

There's also the consideration of where is the line for which a gun murder is liable for the company. What if someone is beaten to death with a gun instead of shot, is the manufacture liable for that? They were murdered with a gun, does it matter how that was achieved? If we do, then what's the difference between a gun and a baseball bat or a golf club. Are we suing sports equipment companies now?

The actual effect of this would be to either drive companies out of business and thus indirectly banning guns by drying up supply, or to continue the racist and classist origins and legacy of gun control laws by driving up the price beyond what many poor and minority communities can afford, even as their high crime neighborhoods pose a grave threat to their wellbeing. 

I simply can not see any logic or merit behind such a decision, but you're welcome to change my mind.
gpt
>Do we hold doctors or pharmaceutical companies liable for the \~60,000 Americans that die from their drugs every year (\~6 times more than gun murders btw)?

Yes - look up the Purdue Pharma lawsuit.