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.
Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 9 months agoThe manufacturer is making a tool with the intention of killing.
You have a point. But you are skipping a road of reasoning here.
bezerker03@lemmy.bezzie.world 9 months ago
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.
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!
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The car has a number of safety mechanisms to prevent death. A gun does too - but, that is to prevent it’s intended use.
The car is regulated to prevent death. Although, not nearly enough. We have licences, registration, regular maintenance and checks. That are enforced with
The car is designed to move people and things from point a to point b. That is it’s function. There is a side effect of that function, that it can kill people.
If the cars manufacturer had installed a spiked bullbar in a line of new cars. I think it would be fair for litigation to be directed at that manufacturer to determine the function of that bullbar. Because it seems like the intention is to make it easy for people to kill people.
The guns function is to kill. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to make tools to kill.
The cars function is to drive. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to move people and things around.
JustZ@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Are you this shallow and unlearned or are you being silly?