Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
Vaggumon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
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).
My target rifles are not intended to kill.
I’m very pro regulation. I think speech should be treated exactly like cars. Insurance is required, licenses, that are required to be renewed every 5 years, training and regular inspections are not too much to ask for a voice that can easily persuade people to commit atrocities.
Bro’s gonna come up to me and shout me to death
You jest, but there have been people convicted of convincing others to kill themselves with words. Hell, there’s been whole wars waged simply on the words of singular leaders.
Oh sure. Stories are the most influential too ever invented. Im just saying, its a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with your words, and I think that difference matters.
That’s not why but okay. It’s because in those examples there is no foreseeability that the thing will be used to cause harm, just a mere possibility.
QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 1 year ago
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.
photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
The constitution also doesn’t mention guns, just a passage about bear arms or something…