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 can legally kill someone in a self defense situation so just because guns are designed to kill doesn’t make them different from another product that can be used illegally.
Cars can be used to kill people illegally and we don’t hold the manufacturer responsible.
IMO holding manufacturers responsible would just lead to a legal mess and a waste of court time/resources. I’d rather have better background checks, and other limits on gun purchases.
The main difference is that guns are tools designed specifically for killing.
I'm heading down to the hammer range to practice hitting nails. Listening to gun nuts talk about the use case for guns is ridiculous. It is actually nice to see a few people in this thread acknowledging what a guns primary purpose is.
Devil's advocate: Isn't the "primary purpose" of a product what it's actually used for?
There are over 400 million guns in circulation in the US. In 2021, there were just under 50,000 gun-related deaths.
Is it fair to say that 0.01% of uses are the "primary purpose"?
If you practice shooting then you are just practicing to kill. So the folks that own the 400 million guns in the US are just practicing for the intended purpose. Which then you can extrapolate out they are just waiting to kill. Which falls in line with every gun owner I have known. Either practicing to kill animals or people.
That extrapolation is like saying that someone participates in a fire evac drill is waiting for their house/work/school to burn down.
Being prepared for an emergency situation doesn't mean you'd want it to happen.
It's less hoops than gun nuts jump through. Being prepared for an emergency vs being prepared to kill are vastly different. The problem is gun nuts won't acknowledge their raging boners at the thought of using a gun in the slightest perception of an inconvenience. The John Wayne mentality is a detriment to society
Yes that'd be it and the primary purpose of firearms training is establishing proficiency in the event one might need to utilize a firearm in self or common defense.
Now reread the first sentence of the person you replied to.
Now reread the entire rest of the comment.
But as the person said, it's legal to kill a person in self defense. If it's legal to do something, and a company give you a tool to do that legal thing, why should the company be responsible if you use that tool to do something illegal? If it was illegal to even have a gun, it might make sense to hold manufacturers responsible, it it isn't illegal to have or use them in some situations.
The sticky part is that killing isn't just not always inherently legal, but is usually not.
Killing? True. Shots fired? Probably not true.
To me, philosophically, it doesn't matter what the percentage is though. Unless we say it's illegal to have the gun, it makes no sense to hold the gun manufacturers responsible for gun deaths. What are they doing to make people use their legal device in an illegal way?
Laws are increasingly meaningless when we're discussing morality.
Yeah, and to a certain extent that's appropriate. Legislating morality is problematic because there's so much subjectivity.
Absolutely! And it can certainly help when there's a clear, objective delineation between devices designed specifically for killing, and those that are not.
Oh, and simply discharging a weapon is typically illegal as well.
If you're arguing that guns should be illegal, okay, let's have that discussion. But if you aren't, and guns are legal to have and to use in certain situations (ranges, self defense, hunting), then why should manufacturers be liable for improper use? We've had several instances of people driving their car through groups of pedestrians, some people punch out their mufflers to make their cars super loud, and people drive off roads on protected lands - all things that are illegal to do - but we never say the car manufacturers are liable because cars are legal to have and use within restrictions.
As soon as you say it's legal to have a gun, it should be perfectly fine to make a gun that meets whatever safety standards and other regulations are applicable. If gun manufacturers are doing something that encouraged people to commit murder with their products, then you might have an argument.
What would you suggest that a gun manufacturer do to prevent people from using their product illegally? Do car manufacturers have to do the same sorts of things?
You keep saying things like "where it belongs" but I haven't seen a single thing explaining why someone who manufacturers a legal product should be liable for people using their product illegally.
By the way, in case it makes any difference, I have never owned a gun, never want one, and think there's a huge gun violence problem in this country. But I also hate bullshit legislation. What would be the goal of making manufacturers liable for gun deaths? To get rid of guns? If so, how about you make guns illegal? Or is there something we think the manufacturers should be doing that they aren't? If so, what? And why manufacturers and not, say, distributors? Why is Remington liable but Walmart isn't? What should either have done to prevent the gun being used in a murder?
Making these sweeping statements without explaining the rationale just isn't convincing.
we could make it very simple and get rid of them as other more mature countries have. you know, the ones that dont have mass shootings of children constantly and arent wondering what to do about all the guns.. those places.
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.
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.
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.
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
After Dobbs you think that matters? Supreme Court decisions mean nothing anymore.
After Dobbs you really think the SC is going to support your position any time in the next 20 years?
I'm not even sure the Supreme Court has any authority anymore.
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
"[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.
States are sovereign governments so yes they have to be granted the right to bare arms.
"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.
we don't need to do that. we just need to restrict stuff like 50 round magazines.
a lot hard to kill 50 people if your gun only holds 5 bullets.
We shouldn't even be talking about how easy it is to kill 50 people.
It's like saying "Yeah, the Head Chopper 2000 can cut off 3 heads at once but at least it isn't the Head Chopper 3000. That one can do 10!"
I would argue that it’s currently impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to remove the civilian firearms from the United States. If I had a magic spell that could make all the guns vanish at once, I’d cast it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, there are so many firearms already in the US that it’d be absurd to expect all (or even most) people to voluntarily surrender them. The situation is made all the worse because of a minority of criminals and capitalists who would no doubt seek to profit off of a seizure or surrender scheme.
Hope, then, seems to lie with focusing on a healthier, happier future. An America where less people are forced into crime, and where profit for profit’s sake is frowned upon, sounds ideal.
wtf are you talking about
car manufactures are legally accountable to meet minimum safety standards for new vehicles. they have been sued over it.
Hostile but ok… I’m talking about intentionally misusing a car to kill people illegally like running someone over on purpose, not car safety standards like a defective airbag or something.
How does that have anything to do with the example of cars being used to commit crimes? No one said cars don't have to meet safety standards. Guns have to meet safety standards too. The example was taking something that's legal to have and using it to do something illegal. We don't generally hold the manufacturers of those things liable for those crimes.
Edit: cars, not cats. I think we all agree cats should be illegal.
I tentatively agree with you. You mention how this would be difficult and messy in our present legal system, and I guess I’m trying to consider what an alternative legal system might do to address the problem of gun violence without the “mess.” In a “cleaner” legal landscape, it might be desirable to nip the problem in the bud (restrict manufacturing), but we have the system we have and we need to work within it, I guess.
Car manufacturers are held responsible, have you not seen the latest airbag lawsuit?