What about the law of public nuisance?
It is not gun makers paying the millions of dollars in damage every time a mass shooting occurs, it is towns and communities.
Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 1 year agoKilling? True. Shots fired? Probably not true.
To me, philosophically, it doesn’t matter what the percentage is though. Unless we say it’s illegal to have the gun, it makes no sense to hold the gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths. What are they doing to make people use their legal device in an illegal way?
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If you’re arguing that guns should be illegal, okay, let’s have that discussion. But if you aren’t, and guns are legal to have and to use in certain situations (ranges, self defense, hunting), then why should manufacturers be liable for improper use? We’ve had several instances of people driving their car through groups of pedestrians, some people punch out their mufflers to make their cars super loud, and people drive off roads on protected lands - all things that are illegal to do - but we never say the car manufacturers are liable because cars are legal to have and use within restrictions.
As soon as you say it’s legal to have a gun, it should be perfectly fine to make a gun that meets whatever safety standards and other regulations are applicable. If gun manufacturers are doing something that encouraged people to commit murder with their products, then you might have an argument.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The argument is that they are not doing enough prevent the murders, and therefore they are liable for the public nuisance that guns have become.
It’s about placing the cost of gun violence where it belongs, on the manufacturers and gun owners, rather than on communities. Newtown, Connecticut had to build a new elementary school. Who is going to reimburse the taxpayers for that?
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What would you suggest that a gun manufacturer do to prevent people from using their product illegally? Do car manufacturers have to do the same sorts of things?
You keep saying things like “where it belongs” but I haven’t seen a single thing explaining why someone who manufacturers a legal product should be liable for people using their product illegally.
By the way, in case it makes any difference, I have never owned a gun, never want one, and think there’s a huge gun violence problem in this country. But I also hate bullshit legislation. What would be the goal of making manufacturers liable for gun deaths? To get rid of guns? If so, how about you make guns illegal? Or is there something we think the manufacturers should be doing that they aren’t? If so, what? And why manufacturers and not, say, distributors? Why is Remington liable but Walmart isn’t? What should either have done to prevent the gun being used in a murder?
Making these sweeping statements without explaining the rationale just isn’t convincing.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Oh, and simply discharging a weapon is typically illegal as well.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Laws are increasingly meaningless when we’re discussing morality.
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah, and to a certain extent that’s appropriate. Legislating morality is problematic because there’s so much subjectivity.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Absolutely! And it can certainly help when there’s a clear, objective delineation between devices designed specifically for killing, and those that are not.