Comment

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

Because it sets a precedent that has ludicrous outcomes where the manufacturers of any product that are used for wrong are liable for the damages caused by their use and suddenly nobody wants to manufacture screwdrivers any more. PC manufacturers are now responsible for the actions of hackers and so no more pc manufacturing, etc, etc.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I agree with this, but if a screwdriver company advertised how well their new screwdriver could gouge out eyes they could be seen as encouraging it.

source
- krayj@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Well, to keep up the analogy, it wouldn’t be the gun manufacturers advertising that…that’s more the realm of the ammunition manufacturers. For a given gun, some ammunition is designed to be lethal, and some ammunition is designed to be non-lethal.
  
  source
MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I think my hangup on the issue is a matter of intention and primary purpose. A cars primary purpose is to transport. A screwdrivers primary purpose is to affix screws. A computer has a wide, unspecified set of applications such that there is no implied purpose outside of personal or economic enrichment. I do not believe that the manufacturers of these products should be held accountable for their products misuse.

However, I’m quite concerned about firearms being used for their primary purpose: killing people. To the manufacturers and legislators credit, as someone else mentioned in this thread, there are at least meticulous safety standards to greatly limit the likelihood of guns killing people OUTSIDE of the users’ intended targets.

source
- kava@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  However, I’m quite concerned about firearms being used for their primary purpose: killing people
  
  Killing someone is not immediately against the law, though. It depends on your state laws and the context of the killing. In most states you can kill someone to defend yourself from a reasonable threat to your life.
  
  The primary purpose is not murder. If the only use for a gun was murder, I would perhaps agree with you. Like if a company was selling a grenade that explodes with cyanide gas or something. I think they should be held liable for that.
  
  source
- DharkStare@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  However, I’m quite concerned about firearms being used for their primary purpose: killing people.
  
  That’s where you’re sort of wrong. Their advertised, primary purpose is self defense or hunting depending on the weapon both of which are legal actions. Deliberately using the weapon to commit murder outside of these intended purposes is a misuse of the weapon no different than deliberately using any other item outside of its intended purpose to commit crime.
  
  source