Nah, it’s a great example, for exactly the reason you said.
The argument for holding gun manufacturers liable is BETTER than the argument for ISPs, so if it doesn’t work for gun manufacturers, it DEFINITELY doesn’t work for ISPs.
Really? I’m very much for strict gun control, but do you really think if a person kills someone with a hammer (or a knife, or a spoon), the manufacturer of the murder weapon should be liable for that?
I mean… Guns are made to kill shit… Its only function is kill or gravely mame. You’re not rebuilding your house using bullets, or carving your Thanksgiving turkey with an extended magazine.
Not saying gun manufacturers should be liable, but you understand the difference between “product designed to kill quickly and effectively, end masse, used to kill” and “product designed to perform useful life function used to awkwardly, and inefficiently kill” right?.. Right?
Just because you hold gun manufacturers liable for how their product is used, doesn’t mean you have to hold apple orchards liable if someone grinds to thousands of apple seeds to poison someone with arsenic. We are allowed to make distinctions based on reasonable intent. You get that right?
Like, we can ban butterfly knives and switch blades but not chefs knives, because while both are just sharp angled pieces of metal, one is designed for kitchen utility and one is designed for concealment and stabbing.
No, guns serve the majority of their purpose not by being fired but by sitting there being ready to be fired.
A person can buy a gun, carry it, fire it zero times, and benefit enormously from that interaction. That can materially improve their life and safety.
This is a little abstract so it can be hard to grasp, but the gun serves a valuable function perfectly well in the moments it is not being fired. The gun’s job, in those moments, is to be capable of firing. Introducing the potential of those other use cases, is itself a use case.
If that’s true then why is there so much more gun violence in the US? Other countries with strict gun laws don’t seem to have an issue with a deficit of guns sitting around ready to be fired.
If I remember correctly switchblades being banned in many US states is just a moral panic thing from the 1950s and did not serve any real purpose whatsoever.
Guns are also for providing food, for conservation, for recreation, for self-defense (really the only good force equalizer against a stronger attacker which is great for women, minorities and the disenfranchised), and also as a general warning against the threat of tyranny.
If we punish manufacturers for bad uses, should they be rewarded for every time someone does something positive with a gun?
Should gun manufacturers be liable for user’s murders? No? Then fuck off and leave ISPs alone…
Thats not a good comparison, guns are designed to kill (whether good or bad, legal or illegal)
ISPs or internet has quite a lot of other uses than piracy.
Your intent is right, but the example is wrong…
Nah, it’s a great example, for exactly the reason you said.
The argument for holding gun manufacturers liable is BETTER than the argument for ISPs, so if it doesn’t work for gun manufacturers, it DEFINITELY doesn’t work for ISPs.
Yes, tho
Really? I’m very much for strict gun control, but do you really think if a person kills someone with a hammer (or a knife, or a spoon), the manufacturer of the murder weapon should be liable for that?
I think it would be funny, if that’s what you’re asking.
I mean… Guns are made to kill shit… Its only function is kill or gravely mame. You’re not rebuilding your house using bullets, or carving your Thanksgiving turkey with an extended magazine.
Not saying gun manufacturers should be liable, but you understand the difference between “product designed to kill quickly and effectively, end masse, used to kill” and “product designed to perform useful life function used to awkwardly, and inefficiently kill” right?.. Right?
Just because you hold gun manufacturers liable for how their product is used, doesn’t mean you have to hold apple orchards liable if someone grinds to thousands of apple seeds to poison someone with arsenic. We are allowed to make distinctions based on reasonable intent. You get that right?
Like, we can ban butterfly knives and switch blades but not chefs knives, because while both are just sharp angled pieces of metal, one is designed for kitchen utility and one is designed for concealment and stabbing.
No, guns serve the majority of their purpose not by being fired but by sitting there being ready to be fired.
A person can buy a gun, carry it, fire it zero times, and benefit enormously from that interaction. That can materially improve their life and safety.
This is a little abstract so it can be hard to grasp, but the gun serves a valuable function perfectly well in the moments it is not being fired. The gun’s job, in those moments, is to be capable of firing. Introducing the potential of those other use cases, is itself a use case.
If that’s true then why is there so much more gun violence in the US? Other countries with strict gun laws don’t seem to have an issue with a deficit of guns sitting around ready to be fired.
If I remember correctly switchblades being banned in many US states is just a moral panic thing from the 1950s and did not serve any real purpose whatsoever.
Yeah dude found the absolute worst example to try to support his argument. Knife laws make absolutely no sense
Guns are also for providing food, for conservation, for recreation, for self-defense (really the only good force equalizer against a stronger attacker which is great for women, minorities and the disenfranchised), and also as a general warning against the threat of tyranny.
If we punish manufacturers for bad uses, should they be rewarded for every time someone does something positive with a gun?
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Ramset-MasterShot-0-22-Caliber-Powder-Actuated-Tool-PAT-40088/202046595
This is not a counter argument, just a funny observation.