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?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      51 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -31 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                21 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