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?

  • 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”?

    • 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

    • 【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.