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?

    • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

            • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, and to a certain extent that’s appropriate. Legislating morality is problematic because there’s so much subjectivity.

              • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Absolutely! And it can certainly help when there’s a clear, objective delineation between devices designed specifically for killing, and those that are not.

            • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The argument is that they are not doing enough prevent the murders, and therefore they are liable for the public nuisance that guns have become.

                It’s about placing the cost of gun violence where it belongs, on the manufacturers and gun owners, rather than on communities. Newtown, Connecticut had to build a new elementary school. Who is going to reimburse the taxpayers for that?

                • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

    • tim-clark@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • radix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”?

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say that all those guns that aren’t killing people are not being used. They are sitting in safes or tucked in between people’s couch cushions, just waiting.

          You don’t think they are all being used as display pieces or for target shooting, do you? And, to the extent they are being used for target shooting, that is practice to do what with them?

          They are made to kill. That’s it.

          Air rifles have a primary purpose of target shooting. Nobody is suggesting we hold air rifle manufacturers liable for mass shootings.

        • tim-clark@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

            • tim-clark@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              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