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?

  • relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But as the person said, it’s legal to kill a person in self defense. If it’s legal to do something, and a company give you a tool to do that legal thing, why should the company be responsible if you use that tool to do something illegal? If it was illegal to even have a gun, it might make sense to hold manufacturers responsible, it it isn’t illegal to have or use them in some situations.

      • tim-clark@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m heading down to the hammer range to practice hitting nails. Listening to gun nuts talk about the use case for guns is ridiculous. It is actually nice to see a few people in this thread acknowledging what a guns primary purpose is.

        • radix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Devil’s advocate: Isn’t the “primary purpose” of a product what it’s actually used for?

          There are over 400 million guns in circulation in the US. In 2021, there were just under 50,000 gun-related deaths.

          Is it fair to say that 0.01% of uses are the “primary purpose”?

          • tim-clark@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you practice shooting then you are just practicing to kill. So the folks that own the 400 million guns in the US are just practicing for the intended purpose. Which then you can extrapolate out they are just waiting to kill. Which falls in line with every gun owner I have known. Either practicing to kill animals or people.

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That extrapolation is like saying that someone participates in a fire evac drill is waiting for their house/work/school to burn down.

              Being prepared for an emergency situation doesn’t mean you’d want it to happen.

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

                  Yes that’d be it and the primary purpose of firearms training is establishing proficiency in the event one might need to utilize a firearm in self or common defense.

              • tim-clark@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s less hoops than gun nuts jump through. Being prepared for an emergency vs being prepared to kill are vastly different. The problem is gun nuts won’t acknowledge their raging boners at the thought of using a gun in the slightest perception of an inconvenience. The John Wayne mentality is a detriment to society

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would say that all those guns that aren’t killing people are not being used. They are sitting in safes or tucked in between people’s couch cushions, just waiting.

            You don’t think they are all being used as display pieces or for target shooting, do you? And, to the extent they are being used for target shooting, that is practice to do what with them?

            They are made to kill. That’s it.

            Air rifles have a primary purpose of target shooting. Nobody is suggesting we hold air rifle manufacturers liable for mass shootings.

    • MisterMcBolt@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I tentatively agree with you. You mention how this would be difficult and messy in our present legal system, and I guess I’m trying to consider what an alternative legal system might do to address the problem of gun violence without the “mess.” In a “cleaner” legal landscape, it might be desirable to nip the problem in the bud (restrict manufacturing), but we have the system we have and we need to work within it, I guess.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give citizens the right to bare arms, it gives States the right to have militias or what is the National Guard today. Any uncompromised Judge would agree with that.

          • lps2
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, sure, if you ignore 200 years of judicial precedent and radically reimagine the definition of the 2nd amendment.

            So instead of ignoring reality, how about we push laws that severely restrict gun ownership as that actually has a chance of passing and being upheld and maybe some new precedent gets set that allows more, similar laws to further reign things in

              • lps2
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                After Dobbs you really think the SC is going to support your position any time in the next 20 years?

                  • lps2
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Your comment above around Dobbs kinda proves otherwise and that’s a big part of the problem - the legislative branch has abdicated responsibility over the last ~25 years and have decided to instead politicize the judiciary so while the supreme Court has lost legitimacy in the eyes of many Americans, they unfortunately very much have the authority

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

            “[historical] (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.”

            -oxford language dictionary

            The 2nd amendment wouldn’t need to give states the rights to have their own national guard because of the 10th amendment.

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

                “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” -10th amendment

                Transition: Any power not specifically granted to the federal government is maintained by the states or the people unless prohibited otherwise.

      • MisterMcBolt@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would argue that it’s currently impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to remove the civilian firearms from the United States. If I had a magic spell that could make all the guns vanish at once, I’d cast it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, there are so many firearms already in the US that it’d be absurd to expect all (or even most) people to voluntarily surrender them. The situation is made all the worse because of a minority of criminals and capitalists who would no doubt seek to profit off of a seizure or surrender scheme.

        Hope, then, seems to lie with focusing on a healthier, happier future. An America where less people are forced into crime, and where profit for profit’s sake is frowned upon, sounds ideal.

      • Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          We shouldn’t even be talking about how easy it is to kill 50 people.

          It’s like saying “Yeah, the Head Chopper 2000 can cut off 3 heads at once but at least it isn’t the Head Chopper 3000. That one can do 10!”

        • applejacks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.

    • Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      wtf are you talking about

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

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gun manufacturers are also legally accountable to meet minimum safety standards for new guns. And they have been successfully sued when they have not met them. Guns must not fire when dropped, for example.

      • relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How does that have anything to do with the example of cars being used to commit crimes? No one said cars don’t have to meet safety standards. Guns have to meet safety standards too. The example was taking something that’s legal to have and using it to do something illegal. We don’t generally hold the manufacturers of those things liable for those crimes.

        Edit: cars, not cats. I think we all agree cats should be illegal.