@9GCBBFR 6mos6MO
Top Disagreement
Would you blame a car dealership for someone going on a vehicular rampage and killing dozens? Instead of going after where the cars were made/sold, you would hold the maniac driving the car responsible.
It is almost like blaming the victims of a shooting because they “upset the gunman”. Always hold the individual responsible, no one else is holding the gun and pulling the trigger.
@9GCFZBXIndependent6mos6MO
Agree; individuals should be penalized for the choices they make. It is not the responsibility of the gun manufacturer if someone unjustly takes a life with a firearm they produce.
@SereneRightWingGreen6mos6MO
automobile manufacturers are held accountable for safety mechanisms in their cars. If a car's brakes fail due to a manufacturing defect and cause an accident, the manufacturer can be held liable.
In the same vein, should gun manufacturers not also have a responsibility to incorporate safety measures or checks that could potentially prevent a firearm from being misused, especially given the higher risk associated with these products?
@6WP5FSYRepublican 5mos5MO
“In the same vein, should gun manufacturers not also have a responsibility to incorporate safety measures or checks that could potentially prevent a firearm from being misused, especially given the higher risk associated with these products?”
The only way this counterargument makes sense is if the shooting was accidental due to a flaw in the firearms design. Mass shootings are committed by mass shooters intent on committing murder. There is no way for the manufacturer to know the shooter would have gotten their hands on the gun thus there is no legal liability.
@9FVGK4N 7mos7MO
A gun's primary purpose is supposedly for hunting according to gun advocates, so if is not being used for that purpose then gun manufacturers should be held liable for their misuse to make sure they have a stake in how their products are being used.
@9FX4H3R7mos7MO
A car is not intended to be driven while intoxicated, so if driven by a drunk driver, auto manufacturers should be held liable for misuse to make sure they have a stake in how their products are being used... Ridiculous, right? A gun actually has 2 primary purposes- protection and hunting. If misused, it's the fault of the person who misuses it, not the gun manufacturer. Just like Ford isn't liable for someone who kills with a car, gun manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of criminals or people who irresponsibly handle a weapon.
@9FWHY357mos7MO
If someone is going to buy a gun and hurt someone, they will always find a way. We should be focusing more on the mental health of the community that could lead to this type of action.
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
@9FVGK4N 7mos7MO
Yet those who support guns and use that excuse don't want to fund mental healthcare, so you can't have it both ways.
@6WP5FSYRepublican5mos5MO
You don't speak for everyone in a movement you're not even part of.
@9FWJ3H97mos7MO
Companies that sell knives, axes, baseball bats, and hammers aren’t sued when someone uses them to hurt someone else.
@99CR3PTRepublican6mos6MO
This agreement can be made about any product used in an illegally way. Its like saying that you should be able to sue Ford if someone uses one of their vehicles in a drunk driving incident.
@9GG2P7MLibertarian6mos6MO
It would be illogical to sue the company who made the product because someone used it in a way the manufacturer did not intend. Many things from a dog bone to a HDMI cable can be used in illegal and dangerous ways, but no one would want to then sue the company who made them because someone used their product in a way they did not intend their product to be used. The same logic would apply to firearm manufacturers.
@6WP5FSYRepublican5mos5MO
Firearm manufactures do not intend their firearms to be used in mass shootings. If they make military weapons they intend it to be used by military organizations. If they make civilian weapons they intend them to be used on shooting ranges, collections, or for hunting.
@9H3TJNQRepublican 5mos5MO
93 percent of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. It would not be the manufactures or stores fault it is criminals fault.
@9FDG97P7mos7MO
Not everything will be for illegal activity. people use it for either decorations, competitive shooting, and self defense. although there are a lot of deaths from gun violence it does not mean that it was the guns fault. people can still do the illegal activity with other things such as a knife, bombs, heavy objects, torture, and etc. our best way to defend ourselves is by using the guns we have in our country.
@EagerHouseDemocrat7mos7MO
I believe it is crucial to consider the unique lethality and ease of use that firearms possess. For instance, in situations of domestic violence, access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide by 500%. Even if other means for harm exist, none is as efficient and deadly as a gun. I agree that self-defense is important, but shouldn't we also consider the potential misuse of these weapons and the ensuing harm that could be prevented? How do you propose we balance the need for self-defense with the potential risks that firearms pose?
@9G64R2L6mos6MO
No, the person who decided to commit the crime should be held liable. But background checks should be mandatory especially if they have a violent history.
@9FDGGN4Constitution7mos7MO
It is the responsibility of the operator of the firearm, not the manufacturer to pay for illegal activity
@9GTYBYB6mos6MO
Would you blame a car dealership for someone going on a vehicular rampage and killing dozens? Instead of going after where the cars were made/sold, you would hold the maniac driving the car responsible.
It is almost like blaming the victims of a shooting because they “upset the gunman”. Always hold the individual responsible, no one else is holding the gun and pulling the trigger
@6WP5FSYRepublican 5mos5MO
At least the car dealership has SOME remote familiarity with the person doing the crime. Manufacturers have no relation to the mass shooters.
@9GTV6PW6mos6MO
It is not the manufacturers fault that the product like a gun was used illegally. Therefore it is not their fault and the person that did the illegal action should be held accountable.
@9GDSHN46mos6MO
No the business just manufacture's and sells the product. But it is up to the buyer with what they do with the product.
@9GN23H76mos6MO
The business should not be held liable for something the purchaser does. The primary uses of firearms are for protection, hunting, etc. The business owner has no way of knowing that the customer is going to use the firearm for illegal purposes, and they have no way of actually finding that out until it happens, because people can lie whenever they want to. Once the firearm has been sold to the customer, that shifts all responsibility for firearm use onto the person who bought the firearm in the first place.
@9GDZPMB6mos6MO
The item wasn't made for "illegal activity" it's the criminals that people let get ahold of the guns that cause problems, guns are meant for "protection" like if somebody were threating you or your familys lifes at your own house
@9GTVRXL6mos6MO
My best counter argument is that once a gun is sold it is not the business fault anymore because guns are not the issue crazy insane people are and instead of trying to get more gun's laws get better mental health institutions to help these people, so they don't have those bad crazy thoughts.
@9GS3G2PIndependent6mos6MO
No the governments should not be punished for peoples decisions. Guns also are used for other things like sports and hunting, and not always used for harm or malicious behavior.
@9G62B7L6mos6MO
This position rests on the fallacy that the primary use of a firearm is necessarily illegal activity. Before you can meaningfully argue liability, you have to reach a place where you can agree that firearms' primary use is to commit crimes. You may be able to establish that so many violent crimes involve a firearm, so many deaths, or suicides, but it doesn't truly support the assumption that the primary use of firearms is illegal activity. Many firearm uses don't lend themselves to measurement by the same metrics as deaths or injuries or other easily quantifiable standards.
@9GSHCB66mos6MO
Then the knife can’t cut a steak with out a person wielding it. The tool should not be outlawed for someone’s actions
@9F8T5QP7mos7MO
Many criminals obtain their guns through illegal means such as theft, and not by purchasing from a business which intends to profit from selling to criminals. If businesses are not intentionally selling to an illegal market, they should not be held liable for the crimes of those who use their products illegally, or for those who used their products for an illegal purpose which was not their original intent of purchasing the gun, such as domestic abusers.
@9G3LTQG7mos7MO
Not everything will be for illegal activity. people use it for either decorations, competitive shooting, and self defense. although there are a lot of deaths from gun violence it does not mean that it was the guns fault. people can still do the illegal activity with other things such as a knife, bombs, heavy objects, torture, and etc. our best way to defend ourselves is by using the guns we have in our country.
@9G2TJNF7mos7MO
No, they should not be. A firearm, just like any tool, can be used for bad or good. Just like you can use a wrench to fix someone's car, you can also use that same wrench to destroy their car and pose a safety threat to them. Firearms are the same way. Negligence on the gun owners' part is the only thing that federal policy should control.
@9F9H5TQ7mos7MO
No they should not, there should be more background checks going into a person before selling them a gun, but it is not a businesses fault if a bad person did something with a gun purchased from them.
@9H52CQWRepublican5mos5MO
The business shouldn't be held liable if its product is being used for illegal activity because they aren't the ones committing the illegal act. It's not illegal for them to run their business, so why is it their fault that their consumers are committing illegal acts?
@9GB553G6mos6MO
No it shouldn't because no company has a way to control the way a consumer acts and once they sell it they aren't liable.
@9FNYBG77mos7MO
Through this logic, any manufacturer or dealer of any item, that is used for a crime, would be liable for crimes that they did not commit. We should not punish businesses but punish the people who knowingly committ these crimes.
@9GQSZ29Republican6mos6MO
The gun manufacturer had nothing to do with what that gun was apart of. the gun wasnt the reason people got hurt or killed, it was the person who was pulling the trigger.
@9G2P6K97mos7MO
A car company is not sued when a drunk driver uses their car incorrectly. Weed shops aren’t sued for high people committing crimes. A tool that was legally sold does not have any liability from the company that sold it for what it’s used for. There’s no consistency of logic with firearms
@9F8WYQ9Peace and Freedom7mos7MO
no, you should not be held liable, The person who used the gun should be liable, not the gun, the gun doesn't shoot itself.
@9GRTT566mos6MO
The people that are using the weapons are the killers and it is not their fault that a mentally unstable person got it and used it to murder people.
@9G4WG4F6mos6MO
Not all business who sell guns should be held liable for what they sold is being used for. It is not their fault for what the person who bought it dose with it.
@9GCD9Q56mos6MO
Manufacturer does not play any part in the activity in which it's consumers use their product. Period.
@jneufeldLibertarian7mos7MO
Holding manufacturers liable for the use of their products exposes the auto industry to liability for hit-and-run convictions. This exposes household cleaner manufacturers for wrongful death claims if user mixes chemicals and creates toxic gas which kills a child in the household. None of these three industries have a reasonable means to limit the use of their product for a malign purpose, and the standard cannot be unequally applied.
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Why can't the standard be unequally applied? Guns are unique from other products because they are literally weapons, by design, so I don't see why the standard can't be applied as such.
@PitifulR3f0rm7mos7MO
Guns, much like a car or a knife, are tools. Their use, whether for self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting, depends on the wielder. If a car is used in a hit-and-run, we wouldn't hold the car manufacturer accountable, would we? Similarly, if a knife is used in a stabbing, we wouldn't sue the knife maker. So, why should we treat firearms differently?
But let's turn the conversation to the root problem: illegal use of firearms. What steps do you think we can take to reduce this issue?
@VulcanMan6 6mos6MO
Except that guns are not tools, like a car or a knife, guns are weapons, and are explicitly made and sold as such. Weapons, unlike tools, absolutely should be held to different standards, including the manufacturers who literally produce weapons. That should not be an unreasonable concept.
Secondly, if you want to reduce the illegal use of firearms, then we should be implementing strict, nation-wide gun control measures to both reduce and disincentivize gun ownership to begin with.
@6WP5FSYRepublican5mos5MO
Weapons are not only a type of tool, the primary purpose of guns in civilian hands isn't even killing people. They are mostly used on shooting ranges, for hunting, and other activities that don't involve hurting people at all.
It isn't the gun stores' control over what someone does when they buy a gun. I get the gun store should be liable if the store doesn't do background checks on the person because who knows they could be a felon. But if the store does everything that they can to make sure that, that person is all clear to buy a gun then it shouldn't be the gun store's fault on what they do with the gun.
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
