SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Adams RJ. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 2004; 11(3): 161-169.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/S0969-6989(03)00022-5

PMID

unavailable

Abstract


One of the most divisive, controversial issues confronting Americans today is the regulation of firearms. Statistics pertaining to firearm-related injuries and death in the United States are staggering; approximately 32,000 Americans die annually from gunshot wounds, the vast majority of which can be attributed to handguns. Estimates of the costs of gun-related violence in the United States run as high as $100 billion/year. Not surprisingly, the firearms death rate in the United States is among the highest in the world, and clearly the highest among industrialized nations. To what extent, if any, do manufacturers and retailers share responsibility for harm caused by firearms? Manufacturer/retailer responsibility for firearm-related injuries may be tested under any one or more of a number of legal theories: products liability, public nuisance, and negligence. Of particular interest to marketers and retailers is the assertion that responsibility can be traced to negligent distribution practices. Although negligent distribution has been alleged in a number of key cases, the concept remains ambiguous. What does seem clear is that legal responsibility for injuries and death attributable to handguns has expanded, and negligence in marketing and distribution practices will become a paramount issue shaping the future direction of the firearms industry worldwide.

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print