Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 1 year agoI’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 1 year ago
Corollary: Vehicles were not designed to kill, so they don’t.
Fantastic! We just solved highway safety!
Sirsnuffles@lemmy.world 1 year 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 1 year ago
Are you this shallow and unlearned or are you being silly?