And the scissors!! Also forks!
Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 9 months ago
What about the manufacturers of knives, screwdrivers, automobiles, hammers? Yes, firearms are made to be used to kill, where the others aren’t, but the intention to kill comes from the user.
zik@lemmy.world 9 months ago
A firearm is a device with limited applicability. Its one purpose is to harm things.
If it was designed to unscrew things then it’d be a screwdriver. But it’s not. It’s a gun. It’s for shooting things dead. It’s one purpose is patently obvious and any attempt to say “but you don’t have to shoot things with it” should be met with the derision it deserves.
Nastybutler@lemmy.world 9 months ago
So you’d like to wholesale ban hunting? Is that your position?
hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I think most urban liberals would ban hunting given the opportunity, but have enough self awareness to realize that’s an untenable position.
hydrospanner@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Urban liberal hunter here!
Obviously my city has completely banned hunting and I travel 40 miles away to do my hunting…but that situation is now changing.
After years/decades of no hunting, deer over population and the problems that go with it have gotten to a point where the city is testing out a pilot program this fall/winter to allow a small group of archery hunters to hunt a limited amount of deer in the city parks on (I think) two set days where the parks will be closed to other humans through the day.
Assuming the program sees participation and effective results, the intention is to expand it slowly to both increase the number of tags issued as well as have a few more days and locations in the program.
I think a part of this is the small but growing shift among urban liberals from taking positions based on points without context to having more nuanced approaches based on overall world view.
For example: rather than just being “anti gun and anti hunting”, I think people are starting to go beyond that and think about why they’re against hunting. For a lot of people, it’s because they’re pro animal. They like seeing the deer and don’t want to see them hurt. Unfortunately, in our urban (and suburban, and in many cases even rural environments) we have already upset the natural balance, to the point that whitetail deer have no natural predators where they live. Without this pressure they become over populated, leading to increased vehicle accidents, disease, and over browsing in their habitats which leads to even more negative consequences and effects.
So if they like the deer, presumably they want a healthy, happy, balanced population. And if they want that, in an urban environment, that means management. If the population is unsustainably high, it is going to come down, one way or another. At that point, it’s a choice between "would you rather these deer die due to disease, starvation, and dangerous vehicle collisions, all the while wiping out new growth in forests, negatively impacting other species and the health of the ecosystem? Or would you prefer the relatively quick, clean, ethical harvest of hunters, and not only respect the animals in life but also remove them from the population in a way that feeds people natural food that is locally sourced, free range, not full of hormones, and whose harvest actually has a net positive impact on the environment it came from?
And I feel like as “liberals”, for whatever that term may mean to people, get more and more into things like home brewing, fishing, foraging, raising chickens, farm to table, etc., the more hope there is that hunting won’t be looked at in such a negative light.
c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 9 months ago
A weapon is a tool, killing things is the job that tool was designed to do. No one is arguing different, get your strawman out of here.
Killing things isn’t always immoral or illegal, either. I can hunt wild boar or keep the prairie dog population in check with an AR-15 as long as I have the appropriate licensing and am abiding laws regarding location, etc.
Then there’s the obvious home defense scenario which is unlikely but happens more often than you’d think, the stories just don’t go past local news.
JustZ@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Right, but the duty of care changes based on the risks.
MolochAlter@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yeah, last I checked harming things is not illegal in all circumstances.
Hunting, self defense, in some cases defense of property or of others.
So you are 100% correct, their purpose is to harm things. Some do so efficiently enough to kill them, too. None of this is inherently illegal, so there’s no issue with them being on sale or legal.
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The manufacturer is making a tool with the intention of killing.
You have a point. But you are skipping a road of reasoning here.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
The vast majority of ar15 rifles sold will never kill anything. Lots of guns are really only ever used for target shooting.
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’m not arguing about the proportion of guns that kill things or not.
I’m merely stating that the purpose of a gun, is to kill. Otherwise, they wouldn’t.
Target practice, is practicing to kill.
I’m not American, I don’t need to abide by your bullshit constitution.
hydrospanner@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Corollary: Vehicles were not designed to kill, so they don’t.
Fantastic! We just solved highway safety!
bezerker03@lemmy.bezzie.world 9 months ago
Technically the manufacturer is making a tool with the intention of firing a projectile at high velocity and that projectile can and usually is used as a weapon.
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 9 months ago
What is the intention of designing something capable of firing a projectile at high velocity?
Seriously, this argument is so stupid. Let me try.
Im a manufacturer that cuts wood at a specific size with the intention to use it as a door. It can and usually is used as a door, but doesn’t have to be.
It is a weapon. That is the intention of the tool.
A spade has the purpose of digging, just as the gun has the purpose of killing.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Many of them are produced with the intention of killing animals (hunting) not people. Personally I don’t approve of people buying full automatic assault weapons and such but hunting rifles and whatnot I don’t have a problem with.
Personally I’m a proponent of the Canadian system where you actually need to be approved and pass a test and be licensed to own a weapon with the ability to lose said license if you abuse it. It’s no where near perfect but miles better than letting anyone pick up a weapon at the local Walmart.
SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Nobody can buy automatic weapons. Haven’t been able to since 1986. I would recommend a class in firearms so you actually know what you’re talking about, strengthening your argument. Currently as it stands, you are just repeating the right buzzwords without being close to correct.
TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Rich people can very easily buy automatic weapons in most places in the US. You just usually need about 15 to 20 thousand dollars to get one in an auction or gun store.
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yup.
I’m not American. This has been standard procedure for the 3 countries I call home. You need a gun licence - and it’s pretty stringently assessed.
I don’t need to abide by American constitutional bullshit. There is no tap dancing from me.