Gun Makers Shun Responsibility for Sales, Suits Show - NYTimes.com

George W. Bush signing the 2005 law that granted immunity to gunmakers

I have long argued for a theory of product liability called product stewardship.  It holds that manufacturers have a duty to follow their products, see how they are actually being used, the adverse and beneficial effects, and make safety changes as warranted by the evidence.  It was developed in response to the Vioxx cases which demonstrated the pharmaceutical industry's cavalier experimentation with the health of the consumers of their drugs.  
The idea is apt for gun makers who spun safety locks and the like.  Unfortunately those who call the shots in Congress have virtually closed the door on such actions via the 2005  Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.  John Culhane and Jean Eggen have been sounding the alarm on that for years. - GWC: Gun Makers Shun Responsibility for Sales, Suits Show - NYTimes.com:

"The Glock executive testified that he would keep doing business with a gun dealer who had been indicted on a charge of violating firearms laws because “This is still America” and “You’re still innocent until proven guilty.”"
The president of Sturm, Ruger was not interested in knowing how often the police traced guns back to the company’s distributors, saying it “wouldn’t show us anything.”
And a top executive for Taurus International said his company made no attempt to learn if dealers who sell its products were involved in gun trafficking on the black market. “I don’t even know what a gun trafficker is,” he said.

The world’s firearms manufacturers have been largely silent in the debate over gun violence. But their voices emerge from thousands of pages of depositions in a series of liability lawsuits a decade ago, before Congress passed a law shielding them from such suits in 2005, and the only time many of them were forced to answer such questions.

'via Blog this'