> I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime.

Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.

▲

burningChrome 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>> Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable?

Notably by criminals who have never, and will never abide by the copious amounts of federal and state laws that currently regulate how people are able to use guns. If that is the case, how does holding manufacturers responsible for something completely out of their control make sense?

Its like saying car manufacturers should be responsible for drunk drivers who kill others in collisions. Because they should've known their cars would be used by someone to do something dangerous and against the law?

▲

MSFT_Edging 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The gun companies have incentive to sell as many guns as they can, to the consumerist base of gun hobbyists.

There are 500M guns in the US because it's a hobby based on buying and collecting.

Due to the amount of guns in circulation, it is common for guns to be stolen.

Therefore, there are more "illegal" guns in circulation due to the consumerist nature of gun owners, and the companies making money on selling these guns.

Without a large amount of guns in circulation, there would not be a similarly large amount of illegal guns in circulation, as they almost all came from a factory somewhere.

I like guns but I am so tired of people acting like the 2nd amendment insists it's their right to treat firearms like goddamn funkopops.

In states with legal marijuana, we set limits on the number of plants one can keep on their property, yet there is no limit to how many firearms one can poorly store for a slightly competent criminal to come collect under their nose. No liability for poorly storing them either unless it's in the immediate vicinity of a toddler.

	▲	burningChrome an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

kube-system 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are oversimplifying the situation beyond the entire point of this ruling --

Cox internet is sometimes used to commit copyright infringement, but it is designed and marketed for legal purposes. Guns are also sometimes used for illegal purposes, but they are designed and marketed for legal purposes.

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

freedomben 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just curious, do you feel the same way about knife manufacturers? Or automotive makers?

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

JCTheDenthog 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

By that logic Toyota should be liable if someone uses a Tacoma to ram a crowd.

▲

dwedge 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Strawman argument. Inflicting harm does not automatically equal a crime. And you're also disregarding the use of guns as a deterrent.