Comment

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

thenightisdark@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
- thenightisdark@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  How do you do " can make that happen and still get rid of"
  
  Explain please.
  
  source
breadsmasher@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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

source
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
So you’d be fine with a hand-pump air pistol, then.

source
MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
- thenightisdark@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
  - MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
  - roguetrick@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    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.
    
    source