Which industry in America is exempt from being sued?

Hint: it’s not gun manufacturers

On April 8, 2022, in a speech from the White House Rose garden, President Joe Biden made the following statements:

But what people don't realize: The only industry in America -- a billion-dollar industry -- that can't be sued -- has exempt from being sued -- are gun manufacturers. Imagine how different it would be had that same exemption been available to tobacco companies who knew -- who knew and lied about the danger they were causing -- the cancer caused and the like.

Imagine where we'd be. But this is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list -- the Lord came down and said, "Joe, you get one of these" -- give me that one. [Applause] Because I tell you what, there would be a "come to the Lord" moment these folks would have real quickly.

This is not the first or only time President Biden has referred to the firearms industry as untouchable with regard to litigation. The idea that gun manufacturers have total immunity from being sued is, however, so obscenely absurd that even main stream media outlets felt compelled to fact check him. It is true that, under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005, firearm manufacturers are protected from lawsuits arising out of the misuse or unlawful use of their products. To expect otherwise, as the President here asserts and as many leftists believe, would be akin to thinking Honda should be held legally responsible for Rashsad Charjuan Owens driving his Civic into a crowd at the South by Southwest festival in 2014, or that the manufacturer of the Ryder truck used by Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Murrah building in Oklahoma City should be likewise liable. What would happen if Chevrolet were sued every time someone driving drunk in his Silverado injured or killed other people on the road?

Gun manufacturers are subject to litigation if due to faulty manufacture someone is injured by their products. To hold firearms makers, or the manufacturer of any product, liable for illegal misuse of their products would be irresponsible and devastating, and I contend that is precisely the intent of President Biden and the anti-gun left - to utterly destroy the gun industry. If this was not the case, they wouldn't be so adamant about going after so-called "assault rifles" after every shooting, regardless the firearm used (I say, "so-called," because “assault rifle” is a misnomer intended to evoke a visceral reaction). Perhaps you think this accusation is not quite on-target? Consider the following.

According to the FBI's 2018 crime report (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls ), 297 people were murdered with rifles in 2018. As a matter of fact, from 2014 to 2018, the largest number of homicides directly attributed to rifles in a year was 390 in the year 2017. There are homicides by firearm in which the type of firearm is not stated in the reports, so there may be more, but even if all of those were added to the rifle statistic, total annual homicides by rifle would still be half that of handguns. So why don’t the politicians ever go after handguns? Without those extra firearm homicides, the annual number of homicides by rifle are a little more than half that of homicide by blunt object (hammers, clubs, etc), less than half that of "personal weapons" (hands and feet), and about a fifth that of knives. Should knife manufacturers be subject to civil liability when someone kills another person with one of their products? When is the last time you heard that Stanley was sued for someone bludgeoning another with a claw hammer? When last did the Buck company pay a legal penalty for a back-alley stabbing committed with a pocket knife of their manufacture?

While firearm manufacturers are not, contrary to the President’s claims, immune to litigation for injuries resulting from defective products, a lot of people don't realize that there are other industries protected from certain liability lawsuits. One of the most glaring examples is the pharmaceutical industry. Many people are unaware that but pharmaceutical manufacturers are immune from lawsuits arising as a result of injury caused by the intended use of the vaccines they manufacture. That's right. As long as the vaccine wasn't in some way tampered with, because of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, if a vaccine administered as intended injures or kills someone, as long as the vaccine carries appropriate warning literature for adverse effects, the manufacturer is shielded from civil liability. Think about how many people have over the years died from or been injured by vaccines. Just in 2021 and 2022, tens of thousands of deaths have been attributed to the (experimental) COVID-19 shots (they call them vaccines, but they are not) which has yet to be approved for use (again, most are oblivious to the fact that these shots are only being permitted under an Emergency Use Authorization - there is NOT available a single COVID-19 shot that is FDA-approved). Yet vaccine manufacturers are immune from lawsuits. Why not make them liable for killing people?

Like vaccines, most people obtain firearms for protection. Why should one industry be immune from civil liability for injury when their product is used as intended but the other industry be liable for illegal misuse of their product? Because one is politically and fiscally expedient, while the other would help produce a populace that can be forced into compliance.

Anyone who believes the government wants gun makers liable for firearm injuries and deaths because the government cares about the victims is fooling themselves. The victims are simply the anti-gunners’ political tools for trying to disarm law-abiding citizens. The gun-grabbers want to create an environment where firearm manufacturers spend so much time and money fighting law suits that they can no longer afford to be in business.