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.
Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
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@moist.catsweat.com 9 months ago
relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
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@kbin.social 9 months ago
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.
applejacks@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yes it does.
You simply do not understand what “well regulated” means.
relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Probably more doable but doubtful with the current Supreme Court.
YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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.
FireTower@lemmy.world 9 months ago
“[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.
Turkey_Titty_city@kbin.social 9 months ago
we don't need to do that. we just need to restrict stuff like 50 round magazines.
KevonLooney@lemm.ee 9 months ago
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@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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.
MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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@kbin.social 9 months ago
wtf are you talking about car manufactures are legally accountable to meet minimum safety standards.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
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.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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.
YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Car manufacturers are held responsible, have you not seen the latest airbag lawsuit?
rthmchgs@lemmynsfw.com 9 months ago
That is more analogous to if firearms were misfiring and killing their users. Then the manufacturers of the firearms should be held responsible.
YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’d say it’s similar in how they advertise. Gun Manufacturers should be banned from advertising and marketing their products.
MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The main difference is that guns are tools designed specifically for killing.
tim-clark@kbin.social 9 months ago
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@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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@kbin.social 9 months ago
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.
JustZ@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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.
Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Now reread the first sentence of the person you replied to.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Now reread the entire rest of the comment.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The sticky part is that killing isn’t just not always inherently legal, but is usually not.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 9 months ago
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?