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?

  • TheOneCurly@lemmy.theonecurly.page
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I would support this if there was evidence that manufacturers were knowingly (or purposefully not doing due diligence) selling to distributors who weren’t following the rules or were somehow pressuring distributors to bend the rules to sell more (conspiracy). Otherwise its really on the distributors to be doing background checks, adhering to waiting periods, and using proper discretion. If we want less guns around then there need to be legal limits on sales and ownership, and those limits need to be enforced.

    • MisterMcBolt@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a very fair point. Ideally, firearms shouldn’t be sold to those who would use them illegally in the first place.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the Big Tobacco argument, they knew their products were deadly but ignored it. Gun Manufacturers know their products are deadly but they ignore it.

      • relative_iterator
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everyone knows guns are deadly. Not everyone knew tobacco was. Tobacco companies knew and withheld that information and marketed their products as safe.

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          So gun Manufacturers advertise they murder more innocent people than any other device? I don’t remember that ad.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, this isn’t the same. The tobacco companies hid data that showed how unhealthy their products were because if people were aware they might not buy the product. People bought tobacco products for enjoyment.

        Everyone knows guns can be deadly. Hell, it’s actually a selling point. No one is hiding that information. But you can use a gun in a legal way or an illegal way. It’s very different.

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

            I firmly disagree. I’m not a fan of guns (or tobacco), but these just aren’t analogous situations. The number of people who think a gun can’t be lethal when you point it at someone’s head is essentially zero, but for years they talked about the health benefits of smoking. And “the gun lobby” isn’t the same as “gun manufacturers” the way that the tobacco lobby was basically completely funded by tobacco companies.

            Yes, there are a bunch of people who don’t want us to be able to study how many gun deaths there are a year, but it’s not because they don’t want us to know if guns pose a health risk or not. It’s just a different situation.

            • phillaholic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              In my opinion, the difference isn’t enough to invalidate the comparison. Same goes for the gun lobby being co-mingled with weapons manufacturers. Compare the NRA from the 70s to the NRA from the 90s and today. It went from a safety organization to an organization only caring about selling more weapons. I lived in a NRA household growing up, and their literature no matter who was President was constant fear mongering over not being able to have or buy more weapons, implying everyone should buy buy buy.

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

                And apparently a lot of NRA funding as part of that transition came from Russia, which is honestly part of my point. The gun lobby doesn’t seem to be primarily manufacturers, so holding them responsible for the horrific gun death rate in this country doesn’t make sense to me.