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?

  • Vaggumon
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For the same reason we don’t hold car manufacturers accountable for the use of cars in crimes. Or knife makers, or brick makers, or (insert item here). That being said, I’m very pro regulation, and I think guns should be treated exactly like cars. Insurance is required, licensee, that is required to be renewed every 5 years, training, and regular inspections are not too much to ask for a dead item that’s sole purpose is intended to kill.

    • QuinceDaPence@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok first, cars aren’t mentioned in the constitution but outside of that…

      I can buy a car and use in off road or on private property and need none of that. I can even take it wherever else I want with it on a trailer.

      So with what you’re saying I can make or buy a machine gun and supressor and as long as I don’t use it in public it’s totally legal without paying any mind to the government.

    • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      My target rifles are not intended to kill.

      I’m very pro regulation. I think speech should be treated exactly like cars. Insurance is required, licenses, that are required to be renewed every 5 years, training and regular inspections are not too much to ask for a voice that can easily persuade people to commit atrocities.

        • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You jest, but there have been people convicted of convincing others to kill themselves with words. Hell, there’s been whole wars waged simply on the words of singular leaders.

          • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh sure. Stories are the most influential tools ever invented. Im just saying, its a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with your words, and I think that difference matters.

              • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Really, that tired debate? Imagine trying to kill a crowd of people with a rock, hammer, knife, whatever. Now imagine trying to do that with an AR-15 style rifle or whatever the fuck. Now tell me, in which scenario is it easier to kill people?