system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Gun manufacturers should NOT be held liable for someone’s misuse of their products

With most posts on this subreddit, I can see both sides of the argument, and I can understand where both view point come from. But, this one (in my opinion) is completely asinine. 

Some examples of current laws/precedences that align with my view:

1) If person A beats person B with a baseball bat, person B cannot sue Louisville Slugger. 

2) If person A intentionally runs over person B in their car, the car companies are not held liable. 

3) If person A drinks too much Jack Daniels and, in a drunken bar fight kills person B, person B cannot sue Jack Daniels.
gpt
Gun companies should obviously not be held liable when they are complying with all laws and regulations. However, what about when they start pushing the boundaries on those regulations? Such as intentionally making a gun that is easily modifiable to become fully automatic? And even if you think they shouldn't be held liable for that, is there no line a gun company can cross?

To use your examples, if a driver accidentally killed a pedestrian due to reckless driving the car company would not be held liable. However, if the accident and death of a pedestrian was the result of some defect in the car itself, then shouldn't the car company be held responsible?