Mastodawn

Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?

https://lemmy.world/post/4622742

Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes? - Lemmy.world

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?

thenightisdark Sep 7, 2023

I use guns to shoot paper. Your argument for what guns are created for is flawed. My gun is not created for the ending of human lives.

My gun was made to end paper from being completely without holes.

Are you saying that my use of the gun is wrong? Or am I allowed to have a gun that is not used for killing?

originalucifer Sep 7, 2023

so you'd be ok with us limiting the utility item to the task required? IE, it should be able to penetrate paper? cuz we can make that happen and still get rid of the human killing ones.

thenightisdark Sep 7, 2023

How do you do " can make that happen and still get rid of"

Explain please.

breadsmasher Sep 7, 2023

In a similar vein, what about the opposite - something created for one purpose but used for another? Cars are made to transport people from A to B, but people have used them as weapons to kill

MisterMcBolt Sep 7, 2023

I have no opinion on you owning a firearm, or using it for any purpose outside of the topic question. I think it’s great that you and many people can use guns for fun and as a hobby.

My question is specifically about the accountability of the manufacturers for the use of their guns as weapons in crimes.

thenightisdark Sep 7, 2023

Because I have the right to get a manufacturer that is not liable. Much like my ability to get a car is based on the fact that auto manufacturers not liable My ability to get a gun is absolutely reliant upon gun manufacturers not being liable.

You are not participating in a good faith discussion if you don’t acknowledge that making guns manufacturers liable will remove my choice to shoot paper.

You’re proposal will affect me, at least if you’re arguing in good faith.

roguetrick Sep 7, 2023

I have the right to get a manufacturer that is not liable

Absolutely not. Gun ownership is not a positive right. The state is not required to subsidize ownership of guns to allow it. You could argue that the state can't make it prohibitive punitively, but you can't argue that the costs of externalities are punitive.

MisterMcBolt Sep 7, 2023

I apologize if I am coming across in poor faith. I do not intend to argue, but to understand. I appreciate your discussion, and I hope we both learn more about other people’s beliefs.

I will note that I made no proposal of anything. Holding manufacturers accountable doesn’t necessarily mean we’d need to eliminate their ability to make and sell guns. I’m not even sure what making them accountable could, or would, look like. I was more curious as to what people thought about the idea of reviewing the responsibility of the use of guns to include those who make them.

At the moment, I read news articles everyday about the misuse of firearms. Children shooting each other. Criminals murdering people. Ignorant, though innocent, people playing with guns and accidentally killing others. In all cases, I see arguments of who to blame. I’ve always been confused why the manufacturers are never considered as a party worthy of blame. I was curious why that was the case, and the many answers throughout this thread have been very enlightening. If nothing else, this issue is clearly far more complicated than I first anticipated.

SpaceNoodle Sep 7, 2023

So you’d be fine with a hand-pump air pistol, then.

dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️Sep 7, 2023

You already answered your own question with the car analogy. Notwithstanding all the rest of it, guns are inherently dangerous. There’s no way to make them “safe,” like removing the points from lawn darts. Gun manufacturers would have a conga line of ambulance-chaser lawyers following them around 24/7 seeking a payday every time so much as scratched themselves with the rear sight while cocking their own pistol.

If you think American citizens like their guns, let me tell you this: The American government really, really, really likes their guns. They want to have all the guns and if they had their way you would have none. But the problem is, they buy all their guns from private manufacturers, just like us. If gun manufacturers were liable for what idiots did with their products (arguably including, but realistically probably not including the various police and governmental forces in the US) they’d all be bankrupt tomorrow. And then what? The cops and military would have to buy all their guns from some other country.

Arms production could theoretically be nationalized, but realistically in America it won’t be, either, because everyone in American politics is really against that sort of thing.

MisterMcBolt Sep 7, 2023

I think all of the points you make are fair. Seeing your, and other, responses is making me realize that this issue is far more complicated then just accountability. It seems there are a massive amount of economic, political, and cultural ideologies in play. Hopefully, one day, these ideologies can be joined into an agreement that reduces the violence we see today.

TheOneCurly Sep 7, 2023

I would support this if there was evidence that manufacturers were knowingly (or purposefully not doing do diligence) selling to distributors who weren’t following the rules or were somehow pressuring distributors to bend the rules to sell more (conspiracy). Otherwise its really on the distributors to be doing background checks, adhering to waiting periods, and using proper discretion. If we want less guns around then there need to be legal limits on sales and ownership, and those limits need to be enforced.

MisterMcBolt Sep 7, 2023

That’s a very fair point. Ideally, firearms shouldn’t be sold to those who would use them illegally in the first place.

YoBuckStopsHere Sep 7, 2023

It’s the Big Tobacco argument, they knew their products were deadly but ignored it. Gun Manufacturers know their products are deadly but they ignore it.

relative_iterator Sep 7, 2023

Everyone knows guns are deadly. Not everyone knew tobacco was. Tobacco companies knew and withheld that information and marketed their products as safe.

YoBuckStopsHere Sep 7, 2023

So gun Manufacturers advertise they murder more innocent people than any other device? I don’t remember that ad.

AFK BRB Chocolate Sep 7, 2023

No, this isn’t the same. The tobacco companies hid data that showed how unhealthy their products were because if people were aware they might not buy the product. People bought tobacco products for enjoyment.

Everyone knows guns can be deadly. Hell, it’s actually a selling point. No one is hiding that information. But you can use a gun in a legal way or an illegal way. It’s very different.

phillaholic Sep 7, 2023

It’s been suggested that the gun lobby is actively hiding data on how bad their products are to health

ojp.gov/…/access-denied-how-gun-lobby-depriving-p…

While not a 1-to-1 comparison, I think it’s relevant to compare them to Tobacco.

Access Denied: How the Gun Lobby is Depriving Police, Policy Makers, and the Public of the Data We Need to Prevent Gun Violence | Office of Justice Programs

AFK BRB Chocolate Sep 7, 2023

I firmly disagree. I’m not a fan of guns (or tobacco), but these just aren’t analogous situations. The number of people who think a gun can’t be lethal when you point it at someone’s head is essentially zero, but for years they talked about the health benefits of smoking. And “the gun lobby” isn’t the same as “gun manufacturers” the way that the tobacco lobby was basically completely funded by tobacco companies.

Yes, there are a bunch of people who don’t want us to be able to study how many gun deaths there are a year, but it’s not because they don’t want us to know if guns pose a health risk or not. It’s just a different situation.

phillaholic Sep 7, 2023

In my opinion, the difference isn’t enough to invalidate the comparison. Same goes for the gun lobby being co-mingled with weapons manufacturers. Compare the NRA from the 70s to the NRA from the 90s and today. It went from a safety organization to an organization only caring about selling more weapons. I lived in a NRA household growing up, and their literature no matter who was President was constant fear mongering over not being able to have or buy more weapons, implying everyone should buy buy buy.

AFK BRB Chocolate Sep 7, 2023

And apparently a lot of NRA funding as part of that transition came from Russia, which is honestly part of my point. The gun lobby doesn’t seem to be primarily manufacturers, so holding them responsible for the horrific gun death rate in this country doesn’t make sense to me.

relative_iterator Sep 7, 2023

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.

originalucifer Sep 7, 2023

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.

Turkey_Titty_city Sep 7, 2023

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

KevonLooney Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 13, 2023

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.

relative_iterator Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 7, 2023

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.

relative_iterator Sep 7, 2023

Probably more doable but doubtful with the current Supreme Court.

applejacks Sep 13, 2023

Yes it does.

You simply do not understand what “well regulated” means.

YoBuckStopsHere Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 7, 2023

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

YoBuckStopsHere Sep 7, 2023

After Dobbs you think that matters? Supreme Court decisions mean nothing anymore.

lps2 Sep 7, 2023

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

YoBuckStopsHere Sep 7, 2023

I’m not even sure the Supreme Court has any authority anymore.

lps2 Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 8, 2023

“[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.

YoBuckStopsHere Sep 8, 2023

States are sovereign governments so yes they have to be granted the right to bare arms.

FireTower Sep 8, 2023

“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 Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 7, 2023

wtf are you talking about car manufactures are legally accountable to meet minimum safety standards.

BombOmOm Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 7, 2023

How does that have anything to do with the example of cats 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.

MisterMcBolt Sep 7, 2023

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.

SpaceNoodle Sep 7, 2023

The main difference is that guns are tools designed specifically for killing.

tim-clark Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 7, 2023

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 Sep 8, 2023

That extrapolation is like saying that someone who 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.

tim-clark Sep 8, 2023

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】Sep 8, 2023

Primary purpose of a fire drill is what? Readiness for a fire.

【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】Sep 8, 2023

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.

AFK BRB Chocolate Sep 7, 2023

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.

SpaceNoodle Sep 7, 2023

The sticky part is that killing isn’t just not always inherently legal, but is usually not.

AFK BRB Chocolate Sep 7, 2023

Killing? True. Shots fired? Probably not true.

To me, philosophically, it doesn’t matter what the percentage is though. Unless we say it’s illegal to have the gun, it makes no sense to hold the gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths. What are they doing to make people use their legal device in an illegal way?

SpaceNoodle Sep 8, 2023

Laws are increasingly meaningless when we’re discussing morality.

AFK BRB Chocolate Sep 8, 2023

Yeah, and to a certain extent that’s appropriate. Legislating morality is problematic because there’s so much subjectivity.

SpaceNoodle Sep 8, 2023

Absolutely! And it can certainly help when there’s a clear, objective delineation between devices designed specifically for killing, and those that are not.

SpaceNoodle Sep 8, 2023

Oh, and simply discharging a weapon is typically illegal as well.