Comment on Why shouldn’t firearm manufacturers be held accountable for the use of their weapons in crimes?
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year agoThis was an interesting post to read. I do think the ship captain and railroad comparisons are not close enough to gun manufacturers. In the ship analogy it would be the shipwright OP is asking about.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Glad you enjoyed. I don’t mean to suggest they are the same, just illustrate the the concept of a defendant’s general duty to prevent others from being injured as a result of their conduct. It’s a function of the gravity and probability of harm.
Explosives manufacturers might be a better example. They are held strictly liable for any fuckups, so they need to make sure the people they are selling to aren’t going to fuck up. Compliance audits up the yin.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Gun vendors are the close example. And they are exposed to liability, which is why big retailers have been dropping weaponry from their shelve.
It’s true explosives manufacturers need to deal only with licensed wholesalers, because it is a regulated product. But as long as they do that, they should not be liable if the wholesaler vends to unlicensed end customers or terrorists or whatever. That would fall on the wholesaler or retailer.
Each party is responsible for the link in the chain which they actually control.
If a gun was found to be sold in violation of the rules and then used for a crime, yes the retailer is liable. But not the manufacturer.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The opioid manufacturers were found liable.
Asbestos manufacturers were found liable.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Those are good examples. Here’s what killed them:
The opioid makers didn’t just manufacture it, they marketed it aggressively and actively downplayed the risks.
Similarly, asbestos manufacturers sold a product they knew caused cancer in its normal usage without adequately disclosing that.