107
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Quick edit: If this is considered in violation of rule 5, then please delete. I do not wish to bait political arguments and drama.

Edit 2: I would just like to say that I would consider this question answered, or at least as answered as a hypothetical can be. My personal takeaway is that holding weapons manufacturers responsible for gun violence is unrealistic. Regardless of blame and accountability, the guns already exist and will continue to do so. We must carefully consider any and all legislation before we enact it, and especially where firearms are concerned. I hope our politicians and scholars continue working to find compromises that benefit all people. Thank you all for contributing and helping me to better understand the situation of gun violence in America. I truly hope for a better future for the United States and all of humanity. If nothing else, please always treat your fellow man, and your firearm, with the utmost respect. Your fellow man deserves it, and your firearm demands it for the safety of everyone.

First, I’d like to highlight that I understand that, legally speaking, arms manufacturers are not typically accountable for the way their products are used. My question is not “why aren’t they accountable?” but “why SHOULDN’T they be accountable?”

Also important to note that I am asking from an American perspective. Local and national gun violence is something I am constantly exposed to as an American citizen, and the lack of legislation on this violence is something I’ve always been confused by. That is, I’ve always been confused why all effort, energy, and resources seem to go into pursuing those who have used firearms to end human lives that are under the protection of the government, rather than the prevention of the use of firearms to end human lives.

All this leads to my question. If a company designs, manufactures, and distributes implements that primarily exist to end human life, why shouldn’t they be at least partially blamed for the human lives that are ended with those implements?

I can see a basic argument right away: If I purchase a vehicle, an implement designed and advertised to be used for transportation, and use it as a weapon to end human lives, it’d be absurd for the manufacturer to be held legally accountable for my improper use of their implement. However, I can’t quite extend that logic to firearms. Guns were made, by design, to be effective and efficient at the ending of human lives. Using the firearms in the way they were designed to be used is the primary difference for me. If we determine that the extra-judicial ending of human life is a crime of great magnitude, shouldn’t those who facilitate these crimes be held accountable?

TL;DR: To reiterate and rephrase my question, why should those who intentionally make and sell guns for the implied purpose of killing people not be held accountable when those guns are then used to do exactly what they were designed to do?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

3/4 states would need to ratify an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment. I can’t imagine any amendment being ratified in my lifetime let alone one repealing the 2nd amendment.

I’d rather start with legislation that has majority support and a realistic chance of passing.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

No. We'd just need to get rid of the ridiculous interpretation that half of the 2nd amendment text doesn't matter. Well regulated militia doesn't mean any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Probably more doable but doubtful with the current Supreme Court.

[-] applejacks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes it does.

You simply do not understand what "well regulated" means.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give citizens the right to bare arms, it gives States the right to have militias or what is the National Guard today. Any uncompromised Judge would agree with that.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

"[historical] (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces."

-oxford language dictionary

The 2nd amendment wouldn't need to give states the rights to have their own national guard because of the 10th amendment.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

States are sovereign governments so yes they have to be granted the right to bare arms.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" -10th amendment

Transition: Any power not specifically granted to the federal government is maintained by the states or the people unless prohibited otherwise.

[-] lps2@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, sure, if you ignore 200 years of judicial precedent and radically reimagine the definition of the 2nd amendment.

So instead of ignoring reality, how about we push laws that severely restrict gun ownership as that actually has a chance of passing and being upheld and maybe some new precedent gets set that allows more, similar laws to further reign things in

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

After Dobbs you think that matters? Supreme Court decisions mean nothing anymore.

[-] lps2@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

After Dobbs you really think the SC is going to support your position any time in the next 20 years?

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I'm not even sure the Supreme Court has any authority anymore.

[-] lps2@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Your comment above around Dobbs kinda proves otherwise and that's a big part of the problem - the legislative branch has abdicated responsibility over the last ~25 years and have decided to instead politicize the judiciary so while the supreme Court has lost legitimacy in the eyes of many Americans, they unfortunately very much have the authority

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
107 points (71.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36199 readers
569 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS