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?

  • Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

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

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

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
        11
        ·
        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
            3
            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.

    • Bezerker03@lemmy.bezzie.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • StudioLE@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

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

        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.