Why shouldnt the gun industry be liable for damage done by its products, just like anybody else?

[Jim Lane]

32. This seems to me to relate to selling, not manufacturing.

I don't understand the concept of "manufacturer of kids' guns" in the first place. A 10-year-old is physically capable of using an AR-15, right? And an adult could use a Cricket or some other gun that's marketed to kids? There's no gun that's inherently a kids' gun.

That's why the issue seems to arise from the selling, not the manufacture.

I think I've read that there are some laws about deceptive design of non-firearms. That is, it's illegal to manufacture a water pistol that looks so much a real Glock that someone could pull off a robbery with it, because it's a credible threat. If the NRA or anyone else is going in the other direction -- a real gun with cutesy features that make it especially attractive to kids -- then the answer would be to make that illegal, if the objectionable features of the gun can be specified.

Really, though, it would be more practical to address the problem at the point of sale. Ban the sale to children of AR-15s, Crickets, and any other kind of working gun. Nothing in the PLCAA would prevent that approach.