this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
2 points (66.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35751 readers
783 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure "this was used in a crime" is the sort of thing that can be legislated or sued over, if that makes sense. I think the more reasonable standard for successfully adjudicating criminality is people's or their constructs (corporations) acting negligently in the production, marketing, sales, and distribution of "things that can be dangerous" or "things that can be used to commit crimes."

The huge issue most of the responses in this thread have is that they say "you can't sue someone for making something just because the end user did a bad thing with it" oversimplification of how basically the entire world works.

The only reason manufacturers of anything have plausible deniability on being partially responsible for crimes committed with their wares is the strong likelihood that they could not have known the end user would do that.

If I hand craft a knife on and sell it on the Internet to someone who sends me a message asking "hey is this knife good for stabbing my bitch ex?" there's a decent chance a good lawyer could get me for negligence at a minimum and possibly accessory to a crime. Because a reasonable person might conclude that knife would be used for a crime.

There's a reason a Remington settled the lawsuit from the Sandy Hook families for $75 million: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/us/sandy-hook-shooting-settlement-with-remington/index.html

They were never going to be liable for making the gun (particularly since gun manufacturers have a special law protecting them). But they clearly determined there was a decent chance they'd lose in court regarding how they marked, sold, and distributed guns, so they decided shelling out $75,000,000 was a better business decision.

If there's a company making screwdrivers out there and they're aware there's a screwdriver murder problem in a city and they manufacture and distribute their screwdrivers to that city and put up billboards and take out magazine ads glorifying how good their screwdrivers are in a fight... they ought to be liable. Not because a screwdriver can be used to hurt people, but because they should reasonably be aware that in that city their screwdrivers had a good chance to be used to hurt somebody.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If firearms manufacturers are to be held liable, what would be the reasoning to also not hold vehicle manufacturers liable in the use of their product in criminal acts?

Vehicles are probably used in just as many crimes as guns are, I imagine, with vehicular manslaughter, running vehicles through protests and crowds, etc.

I can't see a logical reason to target one specific product over others when there are legitimate uses for them (i.e. hunting).

[–] cooopsspace@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

Wait until you find out about fiat currency. Shit has been used in crime since before it was invented.

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the difference is one was designed to transport people and the other was designed to kill something.

[–] Pyroglyph@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. What are they expecting people to use them for? It's not as if they have any uses other than destruction, either of property or of life.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh, sports, hunting, personal defense, lol

[–] Pyroglyph@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sports

Assuming you mean clay pigeon shooting and the like, you're still destroying the clay pigeons.

Hunting

Do I really have to explain how this one destroys things?

Personal defense

The only two ways I can think of using a gun to defend yourself would be harming your attacker or threatening them with harm. "Destruction" doesn't wholly apply here, but it's still harmful or at least unpleasant.

lol

[–] alias@artemis.camp -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, all those assault rifles and pistols that were designed for hunting.

[–] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Because the manufacturer didn't use the gun in a crime. If anything, the only person who could be responsible is the seller of the firearms, and even then it's unlikely that they could be sued as, again, their not the ones who used the gun in a crime, unless that crime is selling to a minor or someone who isn't allowed to own a gun.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It makes a lot more sense to require insurance, like a vehicle.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

How about a license to express your other constitutional rights?

A speech license?

[–] JBCJR@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Spoons made me fat”
Sorry for the low effort reply, but I look at it as simple as that. People often want to find anything other than themselves to blame for their poor choices. Guns may make it easier to make poor choices (arguable), but it’s also hard to eat soup with a butter knife.

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you also against the requirement of driving licenses?

[–] DrQuint@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Weird comparison, specially when many people literally want the existence of actual gun licenses (with education and examination built into it like driving does).

[–] DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

What about the manufacturers of knives, screwdrivers, automobiles, hammers? Yes, firearms are made to be used to kill, where the others aren’t, but the intention to kill comes from the user.

[–] relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can legally kill someone in a self defense situation so just because guns are designed to kill doesn’t make them different from another product that can be used illegally.

Cars can be used to kill people illegally and we don’t hold the manufacturer responsible.

IMO holding manufacturers responsible would just lead to a legal mess and a waste of court time/resources. I’d rather have better background checks, and other limits on gun purchases.

[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

wtf are you talking about

car manufactures are legally accountable to meet minimum safety standards for new vehicles. they have been sued over it.

Hostile but ok… I’m talking about intentionally misusing a car to kill people illegally like running someone over on purpose, not car safety standards like a defective airbag or something.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

we could make it very simple and get rid of them as other more mature countries have. you know, the ones that dont have mass shootings of children constantly and arent wondering what to do about all the guns.. those places.

[–] relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

3/4 states would need to ratify an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment. I can’t imagine any amendment being ratified in my lifetime let alone one repealing the 2nd amendment.

I’d rather start with legislation that has majority support and a realistic chance of passing.

[–] Neato@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. We'd just need to get rid of the ridiculous interpretation that half of the 2nd amendment text doesn't matter. Well regulated militia doesn't mean any Tom, Dick or Harry.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes it does.

You simply do not understand what "well regulated" means.

[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

we don't need to do that. we just need to restrict stuff like 50 round magazines.

a lot hard to kill 50 people if your gun only holds 5 bullets.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

A reload takes about 3 seconds.

The vast majority of firearms deaths have not used high capacity mags.

This is just the typical uninformed screaming.

[–] Vaggumon@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

The constitution also doesn't mention guns, just a passage about bear arms or something...

[–] krayj@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because it sets a precedent that has ludicrous outcomes where the manufacturers of any product that are used for wrong are liable for the damages caused by their use and suddenly nobody wants to manufacture screwdrivers any more. PC manufacturers are now responsible for the actions of hackers and so no more pc manufacturing, auto manufacturers are now responsible for vehicular homocides so no more auto manufacturers, etc, etc.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I agree with this, but if a screwdriver company advertised how well their new screwdriver could gouge out eyes they could be seen as encouraging it.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah. They're obviously 'co-liable' once they deliberately design something to be dangerous to people.

They should be forced to make the guns harmless to humans and animals and then I'd be okay with it.

[–] Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

airsoft guns are a thing. they are what is used during targeting competitions