Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year agoGun vendors are the close example. And they are exposed to liability, which is why big retailers have been dropping weaponry from their shelve.
It’s true explosives manufacturers need to deal only with licensed wholesalers, because it is a regulated product. But as long as they do that, they should not be liable if the wholesaler vends to unlicensed end customers or terrorists or whatever. That would fall on the wholesaler or retailer.
Each party is responsible for the link in the chain which they actually control.
If a gun was found to be sold in violation of the rules and then used for a crime, yes the retailer is liable. But not the manufacturer.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The opioid manufacturers were found liable.
Asbestos manufacturers were found liable.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Those are good examples. Here’s what killed them:
The opioid makers didn’t just manufacture it, they marketed it aggressively and actively downplayed the risks.
Similarly, asbestos manufacturers sold a product they knew caused cancer in its normal usage without adequately disclosing that.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Could make the same arguments about guns though my brother.
Remington went bankrupt because they got sued for aggressively marketing their guns to incel and meal team six types. They knew they were marketing, using fear, to weak and unstable people. What did they think was going to be the result?
As to the asbestos manufacturer comparison, gun makers sell products without adequately explaining to the public the risk to life, for example, they market weapons for home defense, and perpetuate the myth that a gun in the home makes the home safer, despite full knowledge that having a gun in the home makes the homeowner exponentially more likely to be killed by their own weapon. I think they should put photos of children’s shot up bodies right on the guns at the point of sale, as with cigarettes. That’s how we end up with a segment of a population that wants every person to have a gun, for the idiotic and false purpose of making people safer.
Further, gun makers are marketing a product as “safe when used safely” when in fact they know it is not safe. They know that their customers who are buying these products are human beings who are frail and constantly changing, and that part of the human condition is inevitably losing your faculties, and that their products are likely to be used in an unsafe way.
Regarding my last point here, how about the intended usage, manufacturers are liable for both intended and unintended uses of their products. What matters is the foreseeability of the usage. A good example, here is ladder manufacturers. The instructions are crystal clear about how to safely use a ladder. But ladder manufacturers no, that people will inevitably lean them up against their house in the wrong way or fail to make sure the ground is safe or use them even if they’re not completely stable. If the latter manufacturers made a ladder that would crumple the moment it would lost stability or started to tilt, etc., They are be liable for a defective product even though the injuries were caused by a consumer’s incorrect usage.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Many good points. I’ll think on this further.