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?
You'd be charged because you made and distributed a weapon that is an unregistered explosive device - AKA a bomb.
Everyone gets hung up on guns for killing. I've shot tens of thousands of rounds and haven't killed a thing because I shoot competitively. It's like Zen Buddhists who shoot the bow and arrow, another weapon designed to kill. It is an exercise of mind and body.
If any other "hobby" were killing people in the same numbers as guns, it would be banned immediately. Bows and arrows aren't killing large groups of people in seconds. They aren't killing children. They aren't involved in accidental firings and suicides.
It doesn't matter what your "mind and body" wants if it means others die in vast quantities. Your hobby isn't worth more than people's lives, children's lives.
https://hobbycents.com/hobby-guides/driving-hobby-guide/
https://www.theintelligentdriver.com/2023/01/12/5-fun-and-interesting-hobbies-for-driving-enthusiasts-to-try-out/
Cars kill in the same numbers are guns, and are a hobby..... just saying
It's a losing effort.
If they argue that guns are exceptional because they're a weapon, you counter with bows and arrows and knives, they respond with the ease and efficiency of the gun.
If they start with the ease and efficiency angle, you counter with cars, and then it's all about the base design being a weapon.
For these people it's multiple factors. First of all, it's both, guns are weapons, and they democratize lethal force. For these people, that's enough for them to absolve murderers of some of their guilt, to be shifted to the manufacturer. It's not any one factor, it's several combined, so that guns occupy the unique intersection of factors they've decided matters...
But ultimately, at the end of the day, the biggest driving factor behind it is, "I don't own or use guns, so I'm okay with banning, or effectively banning, something that I won't miss at all, regardless of whether it'll do any good. It'll make me feel better, so practicality, or others who may be negatively impacted, don't matter." Their feelings overrule legal precedence, rule of law, protected freedoms, practical arguments, views and practices of others, and everything else that might get in the way of making them feel better.
Some very good points, and well written
I'd double down and say that maybe we shouldn't be driving cars. There are other methods of moving from point a to point b.
This position isn't exactly practical, yet, but it is consistent.
For what it's worth I wouldn't mind banning cars but keeping guns.
Having guns keeps the working man having power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Please use in that order.
The "cartridge" option is more important than almost anything else. Besides jury boxes and ballot boxes.
Many more people who would prefer to teleport to a destination than drive.
It's not a hobby for most drivers.
What if I put a serial number on it and a warning that detonating this thermonuclear device may cause harm and is thus not advised?