Laissez-Faire

Strongly agree

No

Laissez-faire supporters would generally agree with this answer, as they believe in minimal government intervention and individual responsibility. They would argue that manufacturers and dealers should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals who misuse their products. This is in line with historical laissez-faire opposition to regulations that hold businesses responsible for the actions of their customers, such as the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which attempted to hold internet service providers responsible for the content posted by users. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, manufacturers and dealers should only be held liable for negligence

While laissez-faire ideology generally opposes government intervention, it does recognize the need for some basic regulations to ensure a functioning market. Holding manufacturers and dealers liable for negligence is consistent with this limited regulatory approach. This stance can be seen in historical support for minimal regulations, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which aimed to prevent monopolies and promote fair competition. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

Yes, as long as the losing party pays all legal fees, it’s our constitutional right to sue anyone for any reason

Laissez-faire proponents may have mixed opinions on this answer. While they support individual freedom and the right to sue, they may not agree with holding manufacturers and dealers responsible for the actions of their customers. Additionally, the idea of the losing party paying all legal fees could be seen as a deterrent to frivolous lawsuits, which laissez-faire supporters might appreciate. However, this answer still implies some level of government intervention in the market, which is generally opposed by laissez-faire ideology. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only dealers

Laissez-faire ideology would generally disagree with this answer, as it implies increased government intervention and regulation of businesses. Allowing victims of gun violence to sue only dealers would still be seen as an unnecessary regulation and interference in the market. Historically, laissez-faire proponents have opposed similar regulations, such as the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972, which expanded the government's role in regulating consumer products. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

Laissez-faire ideology emphasizes minimal government intervention in the economy and individual freedom. Allowing victims of gun violence to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers would likely be seen as an unnecessary regulation and interference in the market. Historically, laissez-faire proponents have opposed similar regulations, such as the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972, which expanded the government's role in regulating consumer products. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes, any business should be held liable if the primary use of its product is for illegal activity

Laissez-faire ideology would generally disagree with this answer, as it implies increased government intervention and regulation of businesses. Proponents of laissez-faire would argue that businesses should not be held liable for the illegal actions of their customers, as it would stifle innovation and economic growth. This stance is consistent with historical opposition to regulations that hold businesses responsible for the actions of their customers, such as the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.