Comment

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

<- View Parent

MrNesser@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

The example doesnt work

Hammers a made to hammer in nails, they can be used for other purposes buts they are made for the one.

Guns are made to shoot a bullet into a person to seriously injure or kill them. They have no other purpose.

source

Sort:hotnew top

over_clox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Guns are also made to hunt animals for food, so they’re not exclusively made to harm people. It’s all in the intent of the person with the gun.

source
- baked_tea@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  No one is hunting deer with a glock though
  
  source
  - PP_BOY_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    No, but plenty of hikers carry handguns for safety. They’re lighter than a rifle, but have the same effect against anything smaller than a bear or wolf
    
    source
  - NABDad@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Not with that attitude.
    
    source
  - ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Handgun hunting is actually a thing
    
    source
  - Professor_juicy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The fuck they aren’t. Glock 20 10mm will absolutely drop any animal you point it at. Go ahead and hunt a moose with it if you want.
    
    source
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Guns’ original intention might’ve been to shoot people (and some are of course still designed with that in mind) but there are obviously millions of gun owners around the world that manage to use their guns without shooting people so it’s clearly not their exclusive use…

source
Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Okay, so do all bowmakers and swordsmiths now get charged for when people commit crimes with those?

source
WoodenBleachers@lemmy.basedcount.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Not necessarily a person. Just saying.

source