What if I put a serial number on it and a warning that detonating this thermonuclear device may cause harm and is thus not advised?
Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world 9 months agoYou’d be charged because you made and distributed a weapon that is an unregistered explosive device - AKA a bomb.
Everyone gets hung up on guns for killing. I’ve shot tens of thousands of rounds and haven’t killed a thing because I shoot competitively. It’s like Zen Buddhists who shoot the bow and arrow, another weapon designed to kill. It is an exercise of mind and body.
r00ty@kbin.life 9 months ago
RGB3x3@lemmy.world 9 months ago
If any other “hobby” were killing people in the same numbers as guns, it would be banned immediately. Bows and arrows aren’t killing large groups of people in seconds. They aren’t killing children. They aren’t involved in accidental firings and suicides.
It doesn’t matter what your “mind and body” wants if it means others die in vast quantities. Your hobby isn’t worth more than people’s lives, children’s lives.
thenightisdark@lemmy.world 9 months ago
hobbycents.com/hobby-guides/driving-hobby-guide/
theintelligentdriver.com/…/5-fun-and-interesting-…
Cars kill in the same numbers are guns, and are a hobby… just saying
hydrospanner@lemmy.world 9 months ago
It’s a losing effort.
If they argue that guns are exceptional because they’re a weapon, you counter with bows and arrows and knives, they respond with the ease and efficiency of the gun.
If they start with the ease and efficiency angle, you counter with cars, and then it’s all about the base design being a weapon.
For these people it’s multiple factors. First of all, it’s both, guns are weapons, and they democratize lethal force. For these people, that’s enough for them to absolve murderers of some of their guilt, to be shifted to the manufacturer. It’s not any one factor, it’s several combined, so that guns occupy the unique intersection of factors they’ve decided matters…
But ultimately, at the end of the day, the biggest driving factor behind it is, “I don’t own or use guns, so I’m okay with banning, or effectively banning, something that I won’t miss at all, regardless of whether it’ll do any good. It’ll make me feel better, so practicality, or others who may be negatively impacted, don’t matter.” Their feelings overrule legal precedence, rule of law, protected freedoms, practical arguments, views and practices of others, and everything else that might get in the way of making them feel better.
thenightisdark@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Some very good points, and well written
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’d double down and say that maybe we shouldn’t be driving cars. There are other methods of moving from point a to point b.
This position isn’t exactly practical, yet, but it is consistent.
thenightisdark@lemmy.world 9 months ago
For what it’s worth I wouldn’t mind banning cars but keeping guns.
Having guns keeps the working man having power.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Please use in that order.
The “cartridge” option is more important than almost anything else. Besides jury boxes and ballot boxes.