Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Can consumers sue gun companies for product liability / defective
product reasons like they can for cars or other consumer products?

If normal consumer product tort and liability laws applied to gun
companies as they do to all other consumer product companies,
there would be a much different gun situation in the US. Guns
would be more expensive and much safer to handle when exposed to
children for example.

Civil suits arising from damages caused by firearms are
specifically prohibited by "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act," (2005), and became Public Law 109-02

And what logical, rational argument can anyone put forward defending
that law?

How would gun violence and death in the US be different if firearms
were treated EXACTLY like other consumer products under the law?

Why are they treated differently?

It is obvious you didn't read the law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text

--- Begin quote:

SECTION 2 - FINDINGS

(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors,
dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended,
which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse
of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm
that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes
public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic
constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and
destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing
in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an
unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others
are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common
law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide
expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a
maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a
manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress,
or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability
would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.

(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal
Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others
attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of
government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and
judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and
weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State
sovereignty and comity between the sister States.

--- End quote

That's why.