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?

  • DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    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.

    • 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
        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
          8
          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
            3
            ·
            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.

    • zik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      A firearm is a device with limited applicability. Its one purpose is to harm things.

      If it was designed to unscrew things then it’d be a screwdriver. But it’s not. It’s a gun. It’s for shooting things dead. It’s one purpose is patently obvious and any attempt to say “but you don’t have to shoot things with it” should be met with the derision it deserves.

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

          I think most urban liberals would ban hunting given the opportunity, but have enough self awareness to realize that’s an untenable position.

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

            Urban liberal hunter here!

            Obviously my city has completely banned hunting and I travel 40 miles away to do my hunting…but that situation is now changing.

            After years/decades of no hunting, deer over population and the problems that go with it have gotten to a point where the city is testing out a pilot program this fall/winter to allow a small group of archery hunters to hunt a limited amount of deer in the city parks on (I think) two set days where the parks will be closed to other humans through the day.

            Assuming the program sees participation and effective results, the intention is to expand it slowly to both increase the number of tags issued as well as have a few more days and locations in the program.

            I think a part of this is the small but growing shift among urban liberals from taking positions based on points without context to having more nuanced approaches based on overall world view.

            For example: rather than just being “anti gun and anti hunting”, I think people are starting to go beyond that and think about why they’re against hunting. For a lot of people, it’s because they’re pro animal. They like seeing the deer and don’t want to see them hurt. Unfortunately, in our urban (and suburban, and in many cases even rural environments) we have already upset the natural balance, to the point that whitetail deer have no natural predators where they live. Without this pressure they become over populated, leading to increased vehicle accidents, disease, and over browsing in their habitats which leads to even more negative consequences and effects.

            So if they like the deer, presumably they want a healthy, happy, balanced population. And if they want that, in an urban environment, that means management. If the population is unsustainably high, it is going to come down, one way or another. At that point, it’s a choice between "would you rather these deer die due to disease, starvation, and dangerous vehicle collisions, all the while wiping out new growth in forests, negatively impacting other species and the health of the ecosystem? Or would you prefer the relatively quick, clean, ethical harvest of hunters, and not only respect the animals in life but also remove them from the population in a way that feeds people natural food that is locally sourced, free range, not full of hormones, and whose harvest actually has a net positive impact on the environment it came from?

            And I feel like as “liberals”, for whatever that term may mean to people, get more and more into things like home brewing, fishing, foraging, raising chickens, farm to table, etc., the more hope there is that hunting won’t be looked at in such a negative light.

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

        Yeah, last I checked harming things is not illegal in all circumstances.

        Hunting, self defense, in some cases defense of property or of others.

        So you are 100% correct, their purpose is to harm things. Some do so efficiently enough to kill them, too. None of this is inherently illegal, so there’s no issue with them being on sale or legal.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        A weapon is a tool, killing things is the job that tool was designed to do. No one is arguing different, get your strawman out of here.

        Killing things isn’t always immoral or illegal, either. I can hunt wild boar or keep the prairie dog population in check with an AR-15 as long as I have the appropriate licensing and am abiding laws regarding location, etc.

        Then there’s the obvious home defense scenario which is unlikely but happens more often than you’d think, the stories just don’t go past local news.