Comment

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

If firearms manufacturers are to be held liable, what would be the reasoning to also not hold vehicle manufacturers liable in the use of their product in criminal acts?

Vehicles are probably used in just as many crimes as guns are, I imagine, with vehicular manslaughter, running vehicles through protests and crowds, etc.

I can’t see a logical reason to target one specific product over others when there are legitimate uses for them (i.e. hunting).

source

Sort:hotnew top

toiletobserver@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I think the difference is one was designed to transport people and the other was designed to kill something.

source
- Pyroglyph@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Exactly. What are they expecting people to use them for? It’s not as if they have any uses other than destruction, either of property or of life.
  
  source
  - applejacks@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Uh, sports, hunting, personal defense, lol
    
    source
    Pyroglyph@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Sports Assuming you mean clay pigeon shooting and the like, you’re still destroying the clay pigeons.
    
    Hunting Do I really have to explain how this one destroys things?
    
    Personal defense The only two ways I can think of using a gun to defend yourself would be harming your attacker or threatening them with harm. “Destruction” doesn’t wholly apply here, but it’s still harmful or at least unpleasant.
    
    lol
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
cooopsspace@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Wait until you find out about fiat currency. Shit has been used in crime since before it was invented.

source
JustZ@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s very simple and logical. Guns only have one primary purpose and that is to kill other people.

The primary purpose of a car is not to kill other people.

So there is really no comparison between the two.

source