Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?

Quick edit: If this is considered in violation of rule 5, then please delete. I do not wish to bait political arguments and drama.

Edit 2: I would just like to say that I would consider this question answered, or at least as answered as a hypothetical can be. My personal takeaway is that holding weapons manufacturers responsible for gun violence is unrealistic. Regardless of blame and accountability, the guns already exist and will continue to do so. We must carefully consider any and all legislation before we enact it, and especially where firearms are concerned. I hope our politicians and scholars continue working to find compromises that benefit all people. Thank you all for contributing and helping me to better understand the situation of gun violence in America. I truly hope for a better future for the United States and all of humanity. If nothing else, please always treat your fellow man, and your firearm, with the utmost respect. Your fellow man deserves it, and your firearm demands it for the safety of everyone.

First, I’d like to highlight that I understand that, legally speaking, arms manufacturers are not typically accountable for the way their products are used. My question is not “why aren’t they accountable?” but “why SHOULDN’T they be accountable?”

Also important to note that I am asking from an American perspective. Local and national gun violence is something I am constantly exposed to as an American citizen, and the lack of legislation on this violence is something I’ve always been confused by. That is, I’ve always been confused why all effort, energy, and resources seem to go into pursuing those who have used firearms to end human lives that are under the protection of the government, rather than the prevention of the use of firearms to end human lives.

All this leads to my question. If a company designs, manufactures, and distributes implements that primarily exist to end human life, why shouldn’t they be at least partially blamed for the human lives that are ended with those implements?

I can see a basic argument right away: If I purchase a vehicle, an implement designed and advertised to be used for transportation, and use it as a weapon to end human lives, it’d be absurd for the manufacturer to be held legally accountable for my improper use of their implement. However, I can’t quite extend that logic to firearms. Guns were made, by design, to be effective and efficient at the ending of human lives. Using the firearms in the way they were designed to be used is the primary difference for me. If we determine that the extra-judicial ending of human life is a crime of great magnitude, shouldn’t those who facilitate these crimes be held accountable?

TL;DR: To reiterate and rephrase my question, why should those who intentionally make and sell guns for the implied purpose of killing people not be held accountable when those guns are then used to do exactly what they were designed to do?

RIP_Cheems,
@RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world avatar

Because the manufacturer didn’t use the gun in a crime. If anything, the only person who could be responsible is the seller of the firearms, and even then it’s unlikely that they could be sued as, again, their not the ones who used the gun in a crime, unless that crime is selling to a minor or someone who isn’t allowed to own a gun.

ristoril_zip,

I’m not sure “this was used in a crime” is the sort of thing that can be legislated or sued over, if that makes sense. I think the more reasonable standard for successfully adjudicating criminality is people’s or their constructs (corporations) acting negligently in the production, marketing, sales, and distribution of “things that can be dangerous” or “things that can be used to commit crimes.”

The huge issue most of the responses in this thread have is that they say “you can’t sue someone for making something just because the end user did a bad thing with it” oversimplification of how basically the entire world works.

The only reason manufacturers of anything have plausible deniability on being partially responsible for crimes committed with their wares is the strong likelihood that they could not have known the end user would do that.

If I hand craft a knife on and sell it on the Internet to someone who sends me a message asking “hey is this knife good for stabbing my bitch ex?” there’s a decent chance a good lawyer could get me for negligence at a minimum and possibly accessory to a crime. Because a reasonable person might conclude that knife would be used for a crime.

There’s a reason a Remington settled the lawsuit from the Sandy Hook families for $75 million: www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/us/…/index.html

They were never going to be liable for making the gun (particularly since gun manufacturers have a special law protecting them). But they clearly determined there was a decent chance they’d lose in court regarding how they marked, sold, and distributed guns, so they decided shelling out $75,000,000 was a better business decision.

If there’s a company making screwdrivers out there and they’re aware there’s a screwdriver murder problem in a city and they manufacture and distribute their screwdrivers to that city and put up billboards and take out magazine ads glorifying how good their screwdrivers are in a fight… they ought to be liable. Not because a screwdriver can be used to hurt people, but because they should reasonably be aware that in that city their screwdrivers had a good chance to be used to hurt somebody.

WheatleyInc,
@WheatleyInc@lemmy.world avatar

Why shouldn’t Microsoft be held accountable for everything illegal people do on Windows? Why shouldn’t pharmacists be held responsible for prescription drug abuse? Why shouldn’t a social media website be held accountable for users infringing copyright? If something is used illegally and the person who made it is held accountable, that doesn’t really make sense even if you dislike the thing. For example, I hate YouTube, but it doesn’t make sense for them to be held accountable for users posting copyright infringing content.

atrielienz,

Instead of the alternative? Holding people responsible for how they use a tool? I’m very pro common sense gun law. But I also recognise that education and training (throughout a lifetime, not just a one and done) makes more sense and does more good. What is the supposed outcome of holding gun manufacturers accountable? What does that look like? They get fined? Who in that organisation takes the criminal charge in a murder where A Smith and Wesson was used? The CEO? The engineering team?

If you’d said you want to dismantle gun lobbies? I would agree. If you had said you wanted to mandate background checks, licensing, and mandatory 2-3 year training for each class of firearm on the market, I’d agree. But I have a lot of questions about who would be to blame in what amounts to a faceless capitalist organisation. What if to combat this trend they decided to hire someone specific to the role of taking any legal blame in the event they were sued or criminally charged? Could they hire a death row inmate to be that person?

nothacking,

One, people can make their own guns, it’s not that hard, and secondly, criminals can and do steal stuff. They don’t care about commiting extra crimes, they are already going to jail if caugh. All this will do is to make it harder for non-criminals to obtain guns for hunting or self defense.

scarabic,

Firstly, I hate guns and wish they were far more tightly controlled.

But even I don’t think holding manufacturers responsible for crimes is a good way to go about that. Guns do have legitimate uses.

Should we hold auto manufacturers responsible for a pedestrian who’s hit by a drunk driver? How about we put the workers who built the road in jail, too.

This kind of overreaching liability litigation is why we can’t have quite a lot of good things in this country anymore. We can’t babyproof every aspect of our society.

JustZ, (edited )

The question is one of negligence calculus, aka The Hand Formula.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence

I would state the question this way: should a gun maker have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the ultimate purchaser will not use it in a crime?

The concept of negligence calculus comes from a case involving what steps a mariner must take to ensure their boat does not breakaway from its mooring and smash the whole marina to all to shit?

The rule was stated:

[T]he owner’s duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions.

A good example is the duty of a railroad to protect people at road crossings.

Is it enough to have a policy that conducters blow the whistle? Must the railroad ensure that there are gates, lights, and bells, at every crossing? If it is a blind intersection, must the conducter send the engineer down to the roadway to manually wave off any traffic?

  1. The probability of the train causing an injury depends on how busy the intersection is.
  2. The gravity of train injuries is very serious; I’ve seen it, they chop you up like a fish.
  3. The burden of blowing a whistle is minimal, if it’s a remote crossing that might be an adequate precaution; the burden of installing and inspecting crossing devices such as bells and gates is massive, but again the gravity of injuries resultant from trains is catastrophic.

The evidence a plaintiff puts forth in a civil lawsuit, to a jury of peers, in public, is to say: this is the extent of my injury, these are the circumstances in which I became injured, and this is what the defendant did or did not do to cause the circumstances. The question for the jury is, was the defendant’s conduct reasonable?

The thing with guns, not unlike trains, is that second part of the equation: that the nature of resultant injuries are so serious, such as classrooms full of dead kids so blown apart by bullet that it takes DNA identify the bodies, or shopping plazas strewn with dead families who bled out trying to crawl away. You must think of all the injuries, not just the primary victims. The taxpayers of Newtown, Conn. had to build a new elementary school, paying workers’ comp. benefits to town employees spouses and kids that could go on for decades. Hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The burden of prevention could be comparatively minimal. Doing a private background check on every purchaser is minimal. Insurance companies do it for every policy they write and every claim they adjust. And with data analytics it is easier than ever. Family status, work status, gun and ammo buying habits are apparently the major predictors of whether someone is likely to commit a serious gun crime. Here’s another example: credit scores are apparently a better predictor of driving risk than driving history!

These questions of risk can be analyzed and can be apportioned.

In my view, gun owners and makers should be liable in tort for damages caused by their weapons. This is a matter of the intended use of the product and the privity of contract between the manufacturer and the end purchaser, no different than product liability law. People injured by guns should be able to bring the manufacturer before a civil jury and say: these are my injuries, these were the circumstances in which they happened, these are the steps the manufacturer took or did not take to prevent it, and let a jury decide if the steps were reasonable based on the probability that the harm would result and the extent of the burden of avoiding it.

It would be a lot of risk to manufacturers. If found liable, they would be able to sue the end user for contribution, just as in a product liability case; that’s called subrogation.

You can get gun insurance right now but it’s not required, which makes gun owners self insured. Gun makers could get business liability insurance, too; I think most of them self insure these risks, now, though, because they are immune from such lawsuits, that’s why Remington went bankrupt after the suit against it for Sandy Hook went forward, and it was non or under insured.

If end users were required to carry insurance, the risk of damages is on those insurers, which it bear voluntarily in exchange for premiums. This relieves the manufacturers, the end users, and the public. Right now, the communities bear the entirety of the risk, gun owners can buy whatever guns they want, however many they want, and when they’re mental facilities eventually decline to the point of the violent instability, they have no responsibility beyond their net worth.

And, as a matter of principal, even right now, nobody can claim to be a responsible gun owner if they are non or underinsured for damages caused by their gun.

MisterMcBolt,

Fascinating! Thank you for this contribution and sourcing further reading material. I just read a bit into the Remington / Sandy Hook lawsuit you mentioned. Despite many opinions posted here suggesting that it’s impossible and/or unethical to blame the manufacturers, there’s a clear case of a civil court recognizing such damages.

AFKBRBChocolate,

But: manufacturers don’t generally sell direct to the consumer, they sell to stores. Doesn’t your argument say that it’s the stores who should be liable, not the manufacturers?

JustZ, (edited )

Nope. In products liability cases, everyone in the chain is liable.

What you’re talking about is the general law of privity, that says you cannot sue for negligent performance of a contract a non party to the contract.

Products liability is an exception to privity, especially modernly.

Gun makers would be liable under the normal rules of common law negligence and public nuisance, they are only immune because Congress passed a statutory exemption.

A good comparison here is the explosives industry. The product is so inherently dangerous and the consequences of negligence so serious, that the common law imposes strict liability. This was also true of people who impound a natural water course on their property. In each case, it it the general risk of serious injury to the public at large that justified strict liability. This is the doctrine of ultra hazardous activities. When Congress passed the exemption, it was a direct response to law review articles and a couple of lower court decisions finding that the manufacture and sale of high powered weapons to regular people fit the definition of ultrahazardous for purposes and could be held strictly liabile.

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ultrahazardous_activity

scarabic,

This was an interesting post to read. I do think the ship captain and railroad comparisons are not close enough to gun manufacturers. In the ship analogy it would be the shipwright OP is asking about.

JustZ,

Glad you enjoyed. I don’t mean to suggest they are the same, just illustrate the the concept of a defendant’s general duty to prevent others from being injured as a result of their conduct. It’s a function of the gravity and probability of harm.

Explosives manufacturers might be a better example. They are held strictly liable for any fuckups, so they need to make sure the people they are selling to aren’t going to fuck up. Compliance audits up the yin.

scarabic,

Gun vendors are the close example. And they are exposed to liability, which is why big retailers have been dropping weaponry from their shelve.

It’s true explosives manufacturers need to deal only with licensed wholesalers, because it is a regulated product. But as long as they do that, they should not be liable if the wholesaler vends to unlicensed end customers or terrorists or whatever. That would fall on the wholesaler or retailer.

Each party is responsible for the link in the chain which they actually control.

If a gun was found to be sold in violation of the rules and then used for a crime, yes the retailer is liable. But not the manufacturer.

JustZ,

The opioid manufacturers were found liable.

Asbestos manufacturers were found liable.

scarabic,

Those are good examples. Here’s what killed them:

The opioid makers didn’t just manufacture it, they marketed it aggressively and actively downplayed the risks.

Similarly, asbestos manufacturers sold a product they knew caused cancer in its normal usage without adequately disclosing that.

JustZ, (edited )

Could make the same arguments about guns though my brother.

Remington went bankrupt because they got sued for aggressively marketing their guns to incel and meal team six types. They knew they were marketing, using fear, to weak and unstable people. What did they think was going to be the result?

As to the asbestos manufacturer comparison, gun makers sell products without adequately explaining to the public the risk to life, for example, they market weapons for home defense, and perpetuate the myth that a gun in the home makes the home safer, despite full knowledge that having a gun in the home makes the homeowner exponentially more likely to be killed by their own weapon. I think they should put photos of children’s shot up bodies right on the guns at the point of sale, as with cigarettes. That’s how we end up with a segment of a population that wants every person to have a gun, for the idiotic and false purpose of making people safer.

Further, gun makers are marketing a product as “safe when used safely” when in fact they know it is not safe. They know that their customers who are buying these products are human beings who are frail and constantly changing, and that part of the human condition is inevitably losing your faculties, and that their products are likely to be used in an unsafe way.

Regarding my last point here, about the intended usage, manufacturers are liable for both intended and unintended uses of their products. What matters is the foreseeability of the usage. A good example here is ladder manufacturers. The instructions are crystal clear about how to safely use a ladder. But ladder manufacturers know for certain that people will inevitably lean them up against their house in the wrong way or fail to make sure the ground is safe or use them even if they’re not completely stable, they know people will stand on the top rung. I’ve done it. If the ladder manufacturers made a ladder that would crumple the moment it lost stability or tilted, or if the top rung buckled instantly under, say, 150 lbs, they are be liable for a defective product even though the injuries were caused by a consumer’s incorrect usage. Did the manufacturer do enough in the making and selling of the product to protect the public from injuries caused by untinetend but yet completely foreseeable harms, not even to the direct purchaser of the ladder, but also as to people who might be walking by the guy on the ladder? What did the maker think would happen?

scarabic,

Many good points. I’ll think on this further.

mctoasterson,

In the US at least, you cannot sue manufacturers of legal products unless there is defect or negligence. Firearms are legal products and there are many legal uses of them in the US.

If the product is defective in someway such as it discharges in a manner that isn’t intended, they’d have to recall that product or be subject to liability. They are not liable for the deliberate misuse of their otherwise legal product, that’s on the end user.

JustZ,

That’s only partially true. There two other categoried of liability: unreasonably dangerous activities and inherently dangerous activities.

Very briefly in the United States gun makers or on the verge of being held liable under these theories of liability. They are strict liability. It whatever resulted in gun makers having a duty to vet end purchasers, the idea being that selling a gun to any random person that wants one is unreasonably dangerous and or inherently dangerous. These are theories of strict civil lability, meaning that any damage flowing from the conduct is actionable.

They still apply to explosives makers as well as to the use and transport of explosives.

The United States Congress shut it down as to gun makers with a law absolving them for such liability.

Gun makers may still be liable under two additional theories, one being negligent and trustment and the other being negligent advertising.

mctoasterson,

I understand what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms is. Literally no gun manufacturer is conducting initial sales to “any random person” due to the extremely strict laws governing FFLs. They would be committing federal crimes if they did that.

JustZ,

Well no, some are, smaller ones. To your point though, I’m suggesting that gun makers should either vet the consumers for the gun stores, or ensure the gun stores are doing a proper vet, and that not doing so is culpable negligence.

I base this mainly on two things: the burden this would impose on gun makers is minimal, and the nature of sort of injuries that result from being negligence here is catastrophic. The potential for such serious harm justifies the burden.

They could literally do a Google search for the buyer’s name and be better off than we are right now, where manufacturers literally do nothing, except stick communities and families with the cost of their products. Car insurers do it. Banks do it. Doctors do it. They check their customers background before doing business.

curiousaur,

It makes a lot more sense to require insurance, like a vehicle.

applejacks,
@applejacks@lemmy.world avatar

How about a license to express your other constitutional rights?

A speech license?

Pyr_Pressure,

If firearms manufacturers are to be held liable, what would be the reasoning to also not hold vehicle manufacturers liable in the use of their product in criminal acts?

Vehicles are probably used in just as many crimes as guns are, I imagine, with vehicular manslaughter, running vehicles through protests and crowds, etc.

I can’t see a logical reason to target one specific product over others when there are legitimate uses for them (i.e. hunting).

toiletobserver,

I think the difference is one was designed to transport people and the other was designed to kill something.

Pyroglyph,
@Pyroglyph@lemmy.world avatar

Exactly. What are they expecting people to use them for? It’s not as if they have any uses other than destruction, either of property or of life.

applejacks,
@applejacks@lemmy.world avatar

Uh, sports, hunting, personal defense, lol

Pyroglyph,
@Pyroglyph@lemmy.world avatar

Sports

Assuming you mean clay pigeon shooting and the like, you’re still destroying the clay pigeons.

Hunting

Do I really have to explain how this one destroys things?

Personal defense

The only two ways I can think of using a gun to defend yourself would be harming your attacker or threatening them with harm. “Destruction” doesn’t wholly apply here, but it’s still harmful or at least unpleasant.

lol

applejacks,
@applejacks@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Pyroglyph,
    @Pyroglyph@lemmy.world avatar

    Did you really just compare eating to shooting a gun?

    applejacks,
    @applejacks@lemmy.world avatar

    Yea, the logic is pretty stupid, huh?

    cooopsspace,

    Wait until you find out about fiat currency. Shit has been used in crime since before it was invented.

    alias,

    Yeah, all those assault rifles and pistols that were designed for hunting.

    c0mbatbag3l,
    @c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world avatar
    1. Pistols can absolutely be used to hunt small game. Calibers like .22 are used for rabbit and squirrel hunting all the time.
    2. An assault rifle is one that is fully automatic, while you can get one, it costs quite the sum in licensing fees and background investigations. The weapons used in active shootings are semi automatic rifles, not military grade assault rifles.
    JustZ,

    It’s very simple and logical. Guns only have one primary purpose and that is to kill other people.

    The primary purpose of a car is not to kill other people.

    So there is really no comparison between the two.

    The only people that don’t understand this are morons who have no concept of utility.

    corrupts_absolutely,

    killing is seen as required to some extent, otherwise we wouldnt have any armies, so making weapons shouldnt be a crime by itself. still most legislations around the world limit what kind of firearms one can manufacture, and how they can be distributed. if i made a nuke and sold it to you, and then ud detonate it in the atlantic, both of us would probably go to jail on various weapons of mass destruction charges, even though i havent nuked nobody.

    lemmefixdat4u,

    You’d be charged because you made and distributed a weapon that is an unregistered explosive device - AKA a bomb.

    Everyone gets hung up on guns for killing. I’ve shot tens of thousands of rounds and haven’t killed a thing because I shoot competitively. It’s like Zen Buddhists who shoot the bow and arrow, another weapon designed to kill. It is an exercise of mind and body.

    RGB3x3,

    If any other “hobby” were killing people in the same numbers as guns, it would be banned immediately. Bows and arrows aren’t killing large groups of people in seconds. They aren’t killing children. They aren’t involved in accidental firings and suicides.

    It doesn’t matter what your “mind and body” wants if it means others die in vast quantities. Your hobby isn’t worth more than people’s lives, children’s lives.

    thenightisdark,

    hobbycents.com/hobby-guides/driving-hobby-guide/

    theintelligentdriver.com/…/5-fun-and-interesting-…

    Cars kill in the same numbers are guns, and are a hobby… just saying

    hydrospanner,

    It’s a losing effort.

    If they argue that guns are exceptional because they’re a weapon, you counter with bows and arrows and knives, they respond with the ease and efficiency of the gun.

    If they start with the ease and efficiency angle, you counter with cars, and then it’s all about the base design being a weapon.

    For these people it’s multiple factors. First of all, it’s both, guns are weapons, and they democratize lethal force. For these people, that’s enough for them to absolve murderers of some of their guilt, to be shifted to the manufacturer. It’s not any one factor, it’s several combined, so that guns occupy the unique intersection of factors they’ve decided matters…

    But ultimately, at the end of the day, the biggest driving factor behind it is, “I don’t own or use guns, so I’m okay with banning, or effectively banning, something that I won’t miss at all, regardless of whether it’ll do any good. It’ll make me feel better, so practicality, or others who may be negatively impacted, don’t matter.” Their feelings overrule legal precedence, rule of law, protected freedoms, practical arguments, views and practices of others, and everything else that might get in the way of making them feel better.

    thenightisdark,

    Some very good points, and well written

    alias,

    Many more people who would prefer to teleport to a destination than drive.

    It's not a hobby for most drivers.

    Sirsnuffles,

    I’d double down and say that maybe we shouldn’t be driving cars. There are other methods of moving from point a to point b.

    This position isn’t exactly practical, yet, but it is consistent.

    thenightisdark,

    For what it’s worth I wouldn’t mind banning cars but keeping guns.

    Having guns keeps the working man having power.

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Please use in that order.

    The “cartridge” option is more important than almost anything else. Besides jury boxes and ballot boxes.

    r00ty,
    @r00ty@kbin.life avatar

    What if I put a serial number on it and a warning that detonating this thermonuclear device may cause harm and is thus not advised?

    DirigibleProtein,

    What about the manufacturers of knives, screwdrivers, automobiles, hammers? Yes, firearms are made to be used to kill, where the others aren’t, but the intention to kill comes from the user.

    u202307011927,
    @u202307011927@feddit.de avatar

    And the scissors!! Also forks!

    RogueBanana,

    Don’t forget pencils!

    Sirsnuffles,

    The manufacturer is making a tool with the intention of killing.

    You have a point. But you are skipping a road of reasoning here.

    StudioLE,

    Arms manufacturers would probably argue that guns are intended to be deterrent. And they shouldn’t be held liable that the cops keep executing unarmed suspects with them.

    Sirsnuffles,

    Can’t hurt their profit margins, of course they would say that.

    bezerker03,

    Technically the manufacturer is making a tool with the intention of firing a projectile at high velocity and that projectile can and usually is used as a weapon.

    Sirsnuffles,

    What is the intention of designing something capable of firing a projectile at high velocity?

    Seriously, this argument is so stupid. Let me try.

    Im a manufacturer that cuts wood at a specific size with the intention to use it as a door. It can and usually is used as a door, but doesn’t have to be.

    It is a weapon. That is the intention of the tool.

    A spade has the purpose of digging, just as the gun has the purpose of killing.

    Pyr_Pressure,

    Many of them are produced with the intention of killing animals (hunting) not people. Personally I don’t approve of people buying full automatic assault weapons and such but hunting rifles and whatnot I don’t have a problem with.

    Personally I’m a proponent of the Canadian system where you actually need to be approved and pass a test and be licensed to own a weapon with the ability to lose said license if you abuse it. It’s no where near perfect but miles better than letting anyone pick up a weapon at the local Walmart.

    SpezBroughtMeHere,

    Nobody can buy automatic weapons. Haven’t been able to since 1986. I would recommend a class in firearms so you actually know what you’re talking about, strengthening your argument. Currently as it stands, you are just repeating the right buzzwords without being close to correct.

    TopRamenBinLaden, (edited )

    Rich people can very easily buy automatic weapons in most places in the US. You just usually need about 15 to 20 thousand dollars to get one in an auction or gun store. There really isn’t anything holding anybody back besides money and their arrest record.

    This also depends on the particular states’ laws about them. In a few states they are completely banned, others have extra restrictions.

    In my particular state, people have them at the shooting range all of the time. You can even rent them at most ranges. You can aquire them easily if you get a FFL, and a lot of gun people seem to go that route.

    Sirsnuffles,

    Yup.

    I’m not American. This has been standard procedure for the 3 countries I call home. You need a gun licence - and it’s pretty stringently assessed.

    I don’t need to abide by American constitutional bullshit. There is no tap dancing from me.

    ryathal,

    The vast majority of ar15 rifles sold will never kill anything. Lots of guns are really only ever used for target shooting.

    Sirsnuffles,

    I’m not arguing about the proportion of guns that kill things or not.

    I’m merely stating that the purpose of a gun, is to kill. Otherwise, they wouldn’t.

    Target practice, is practicing to kill.

    I’m not American, I don’t need to abide by your bullshit constitution.

    hydrospanner,

    I’m merely stating that the purpose of a gun, is to kill. Otherwise, they wouldn’t.

    Corollary: Vehicles were not designed to kill, so they don’t.

    Fantastic! We just solved highway safety!

    Sirsnuffles,

    The car has a number of safety mechanisms to prevent death. A gun does too - but, that is to prevent it’s intended use.

    The car is regulated to prevent death. Although, not nearly enough. We have licences, registration, regular maintenance and checks. That are enforced with fines, usually.

    The car is designed to move people and things from point a to point b. That is it’s function. There is a side effect of that function, that it can kill people.

    If the cars manufacturer had installed a spiked bullbar in a line of new cars. I think it would be fair for litigation to be directed at that manufacturer to determine the function of that bullbar. Because it seems like the intention is to make it easy for people to kill people.

    The guns function is to kill. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to make tools to kill.

    The cars function is to drive. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to move people and things around.

    JustZ,

    Are you this shallow and unlearned or are you being silly?

    zik,

    A firearm is a device with limited applicability. Its one purpose is to harm things.

    If it was designed to unscrew things then it’d be a screwdriver. But it’s not. It’s a gun. It’s for shooting things dead. It’s one purpose is patently obvious and any attempt to say “but you don’t have to shoot things with it” should be met with the derision it deserves.

    Nastybutler,

    So you’d like to wholesale ban hunting? Is that your position?

    hesusingthespiritbomb,

    I think most urban liberals would ban hunting given the opportunity, but have enough self awareness to realize that’s an untenable position.

    hydrospanner,

    Urban liberal hunter here!

    Obviously my city has completely banned hunting and I travel 40 miles away to do my hunting…but that situation is now changing.

    After years/decades of no hunting, deer over population and the problems that go with it have gotten to a point where the city is testing out a pilot program this fall/winter to allow a small group of archery hunters to hunt a limited amount of deer in the city parks on (I think) two set days where the parks will be closed to other humans through the day.

    Assuming the program sees participation and effective results, the intention is to expand it slowly to both increase the number of tags issued as well as have a few more days and locations in the program.

    I think a part of this is the small but growing shift among urban liberals from taking positions based on points without context to having more nuanced approaches based on overall world view.

    For example: rather than just being “anti gun and anti hunting”, I think people are starting to go beyond that and think about why they’re against hunting. For a lot of people, it’s because they’re pro animal. They like seeing the deer and don’t want to see them hurt. Unfortunately, in our urban (and suburban, and in many cases even rural environments) we have already upset the natural balance, to the point that whitetail deer have no natural predators where they live. Without this pressure they become over populated, leading to increased vehicle accidents, disease, and over browsing in their habitats which leads to even more negative consequences and effects.

    So if they like the deer, presumably they want a healthy, happy, balanced population. And if they want that, in an urban environment, that means management. If the population is unsustainably high, it is going to come down, one way or another. At that point, it’s a choice between "would you rather these deer die due to disease, starvation, and dangerous vehicle collisions, all the while wiping out new growth in forests, negatively impacting other species and the health of the ecosystem? Or would you prefer the relatively quick, clean, ethical harvest of hunters, and not only respect the animals in life but also remove them from the population in a way that feeds people natural food that is locally sourced, free range, not full of hormones, and whose harvest actually has a net positive impact on the environment it came from?

    And I feel like as “liberals”, for whatever that term may mean to people, get more and more into things like home brewing, fishing, foraging, raising chickens, farm to table, etc., the more hope there is that hunting won’t be looked at in such a negative light.

    MolochAlter,

    Yeah, last I checked harming things is not illegal in all circumstances.

    Hunting, self defense, in some cases defense of property or of others.

    So you are 100% correct, their purpose is to harm things. Some do so efficiently enough to kill them, too. None of this is inherently illegal, so there’s no issue with them being on sale or legal.

    c0mbatbag3l,
    @c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world avatar

    A weapon is a tool, killing things is the job that tool was designed to do. No one is arguing different, get your strawman out of here.

    Killing things isn’t always immoral or illegal, either. I can hunt wild boar or keep the prairie dog population in check with an AR-15 as long as I have the appropriate licensing and am abiding laws regarding location, etc.

    Then there’s the obvious home defense scenario which is unlikely but happens more often than you’d think, the stories just don’t go past local news.

    JustZ,

    Right, but the duty of care changes based on the risks.

    Deestan,

    Imagine if this applies to other tools, like hammers.

    Should the manufacturer of the 5 lbs MurderSpike SkullBleeder with night camouflage handle, extra inset bone crackers and instashatter blood flow accelerator head ®™, licensing games and movies to show people murdering each other gloriously with their hammer… be held responsible if by some off chance some person ends up murdering someone with it??? It’s ludicrous.

    MrNesser, (edited )

    The example doesnt work

    Hammers a made to hammer in nails, they can be used for other purposes but they are made for the one.

    Guns are made to shoot a bullet into a animal/perso to seriously injure or kill. They have no other purpose it’s their exclusive use.

    Edited: to include animals for the pedantic among us.

    over_clox,

    Guns are also made to hunt animals for food, so they’re not exclusively made to harm people. It’s all in the intent of the person with the gun.

    baked_tea,

    No one is hunting deer with a glock though

    NABDad,

    Not with that attitude.

    PP_BOY_,
    @PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

    No, but plenty of hikers carry handguns for safety. They’re lighter than a rifle, but have the same effect against anything smaller than a bear or wolf

    ThrowawayPermanente,

    Handgun hunting is actually a thing

    Professor_juicy,

    The fuck they aren’t. Glock 20 10mm will absolutely drop any animal you point it at. Go ahead and hunt a moose with it if you want.

    WoodenBleachers,
    @WoodenBleachers@lemmy.basedcount.com avatar

    Not necessarily a person. Just saying.

    usualsuspect191,

    Guns’ original intention might’ve been to shoot people (and some are of course still designed with that in mind) but there are obviously millions of gun owners around the world that manage to use their guns without shooting people so it’s clearly not their exclusive use…

    Widowmaker_Best_Girl,

    Okay, so do all bowmakers and swordsmiths now get charged for when people commit crimes with those?

    Hazdaz,

    When a gun is used 100% correctly, it will kill.

    When a hammer is used 100% incorrectly, it will kill.

    RaoulDook,

    Nope, lots of guns are used 100% correctly to shoot inanimate targets, in fact more often than they are used for killing anything. Target practice, competition shooting, recreational blasting, etc.

    HonoraryMancunian,

    You’d like the film Runaway Jury.

    JBCJR,

    “Spoons made me fat”
    Sorry for the low effort reply, but I look at it as simple as that. People often want to find anything other than themselves to blame for their poor choices. Guns may make it easier to make poor choices (arguable), but it’s also hard to eat soup with a butter knife.

    xigoi,
    @xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Are you also against the requirement of driving licenses?

    SpacetimeMachine,

    Do we charge car companies when their vehicles are used to run someone over?

    xigoi,
    @xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

    Cars are not primarily designed for running over people. And despite that, they’re regulated more than guns.

    JBCJR,

    Fair point, I think that does highlight an issue with how they are sometimes marketed. If Chevy's next truck had a front end specifically designed to mow people down and they had a commercial demonstrating its effectiveness in a crowd, I think people would freak out; even the most unreasonable would probably say "WTF Chevy?" A person could make the argument that guns aren't primarily designed with harming others even with self-defense in mind, but for hunting, but I think that argument conveniently ignores the fact that some gun owners may have never even hunted for their food and they own one simply to protect themselves against someone who doesn't care whether the gun they own and wield with the intent to harm or commit a crime is legal or not.

    JBCJR,

    Not exactly, it's an interesting point, but to be fair I don't think I have a strong opinion one way or another on that topic. I think licensing a driver assumes they are a little more aware of the consequences of their actions behind the wheel and they are well trained at dealing with potentially dangerous machinery (lol, reality and expectations don't always align), but that's an assumption, people do dumb/negligent things in cars constantly and I'm afraid the threat of losing their license over it doesn't always (or probably even mostly) work to deter a person who intends to use it as a weapon and/or has already lost sight of the other consequences. When someone decides to use that machine as a weapon it rarely makes sense (at least to me) to ask why didn't the manufacturer do more to prevent this? That said, it is an interesting idea, in theory at least, treating gun ownership the same way as car ownership with licensing and insurance, a license creates some additional legal liability to hold someone accountable for their actions, but it would still be about personal responsibility not the auto maker. I also don't think a lot of gun owners want to budge on their current rights because they fear the slippery slope effect of over-regulation and asking the very people who the 2nd amendment is meant to keep in check to write the rules may only benefit them. In the end, my opinion is not that America has a gun problem, it has a mental health problem and a predatory for-profit prison system that creates a revolving door that unfairly targets people of certain backgrounds or social status. Gun control in itself may just be another form of Problem Reaction Solution (Create or allow a problem, wait for the reaction, offer a solution that benefits one side over another that wouldn't have otherwise been appealing without the initial problem), that and I wonder if the gun debate often gets intentionally steered in circles or nonsensical directions as a form of bread and circus to keep us ignorant to the actual root cause, which is sometimes people do bad things regardless of the consequences. Remember, to keep the people with the pitchforks busy, all you have to do is convince them the people with the torches want to take their pitchforks away, and they'll never come for the rulers. I rarely take part in these debates because I don't pretend to have enough knowledge on the subject to create a strong enough argument for either side, but I am glad people are at least discussing these ideas, just the same as I'd be glad to see (or be) a good guy with a gun when threatened by a bad guy with a gun.

    DrQuint,

    Weird comparison, specially when many people literally want the existence of actual gun licenses (with education and examination built into it like driving does).

    Juvyn00b,

    Your spoon doesn’t make me fat. Unless your spoon has ice cream on it and I’m a willing participant.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines
    •