Wait until you find out about fiat currency. Shit has been used in crime since before it was invented.
Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
If firearms manufacturers are to be held liable, what would be the reasoning to also not hold vehicle manufacturers liable in the use of their product in criminal acts?
Vehicles are probably used in just as many crimes as guns are, I imagine, with vehicular manslaughter, running vehicles through protests and crowds, etc.
I can’t see a logical reason to target one specific product over others when there are legitimate uses for them (i.e. hunting).
cooopsspace@infosec.pub 1 year ago
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s very simple and logical. Guns only have one primary purpose and that is to kill other people.
The primary purpose of a car is not to kill other people.
So there is really no comparison between the two.
alias@artemis.camp 1 year ago
Yeah, all those assault rifles and pistols that were designed for hunting.
c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 1 year ago
-
Pistols can absolutely be used to hunt small game. Calibers like .22 are used for rabbit and squirrel hunting all the time.
-
An assault rifle is one that is fully automatic, while you can get one, it costs quite the sum in licensing fees and background investigations. The weapons used in active shootings are semi automatic rifles, not military grade assault rifles.
-
toiletobserver@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think the difference is one was designed to transport people and the other was designed to kill something.
Pyroglyph@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Exactly. What are they expecting people to use them for? It’s not as if they have any uses other than destruction, either of property or of life.
applejacks@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Uh, sports, hunting, personal defense, lol
Pyroglyph@lemmy.world 1 year ago
lol