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?

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.