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…
Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
MrNesser@lemmy.world 9 months agoThe 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.
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Okay, so do all bowmakers and swordsmiths now get charged for when people commit crimes with those?
WoodenBleachers@lemmy.basedcount.com 9 months ago
Not necessarily a person. Just saying.
over_clox@lemmy.world 9 months 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.
baked_tea@lemmy.world 9 months ago
No one is hunting deer with a glock though
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 9 months 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
NABDad@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Not with that attitude.
ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Handgun hunting is actually a thing
Professor_juicy@lemmy.world 9 months 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.