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?

  • @Deestan
    link
    121 year ago

    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
      link
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        171 year ago

        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
          link
          -41 year ago

          No one is hunting deer with a glock though

          • mommykink
            link
            101 year ago

            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

          • @NABDad
            link
            English
            61 year ago

            Not with that attitude.

          • @Professor_juicy
            link
            11 year ago

            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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        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
        link
        81 year ago

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

    • @Hazdaz
      link
      -11 year ago

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

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

      • @RaoulDook
        link
        English
        131 year ago

        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.