Gun Crime - Shouldnt gun makers share resposibility?

[dark matter]

I have been told so many reasons why this is an illogical argument. Does anyone on this planet have a legal argument that supports if the bullets and guns of a particualr gun manufacturer ends up on the streets they should have share some responsibility in it getting there especially when there is a blatant epidemic of gun crime in communities up and down the country.
I vaguely remember a story where America were saying they found (Iranian manufactured) guns and ammunition in Iraq being used against US soldiers. These findings were 'proof' that Iran is assisting the 'enemies'.
How comes it so much more a palatable notion on a Global scale???

[dark matter]

and when another young person dies from a bullet made by some corporate manufacturer blame should be apportioned for the gun making its way into the community. Kids can buy guns on the 'black market' and they can also buy drugs. Dealers 'always' get arrested and also suppliers. Why can't the same principle be applied to gun manufacturers. Why should those who profit so handsomely from the sale of arms be able to send their kids to private schools and live conscious free when it is their products that are ruining lives in my community.

[Mongrel]

and when another young person dies from a bullet made by some corporate manufacturer blame should be apportioned for the gun making its way into the community. Kids can buy guns on the 'black market' and they can also buy drugs. Dealers 'always' get arrested and also suppliers. Why can't the same principle be applied to gun manufacturers. Why should those who profit so handsomely from the sale of arms be able to send their kids to private schools and live conscious free when it is their products that are ruining lives in my community.

So what about knifes (of all sorts), crowbars, spanners, large lumps of wood, screwdivers, chisels, spades etc. All of these and many more items that most people have around the home can, and have, be used to mutilate, damage and kill people. Putting aside the emotional, knee jerk "It's a gun!" reaction what differentiates firearms from any number of easily obtainable items that can be used to cause harm to another human being?

[Admin]

I think the main sticking point in blaming the manufacturers is that they are making guns legitimately. Especially in the USA where almost anyone can legally own a gun or rifle (a lot of them are into hunting).

[Araneus]

What exactly is the gun manufacturer supposed to do to prevent their legally-manufactured guns from getting into the wrong hands? If the government doesn't want guns, they should ban their manufacture altogether, not allow them to be produced and then blame the manufacturer for failing to do the government's job (controlling their distribution).

[dark matter]

[quote=Araneus;18001]What exactly is the gun manufacturer supposed to do to prevent their legally-manufactured guns from getting into the wrong hands?

So then if you go back to my point about Iranian made guns used against American and UK soldiers in Iraq and the US using that as proof against the Iranians. How can that argument be justified but not the argument that I raised.

[Tin Lizzie]

[quote=dark matter;18032]

What exactly is the gun manufacturer supposed to do to prevent their legally-manufactured guns from getting into the wrong hands?

So then if you go back to my point about Iranian made guns used against American and UK soldiers in Iraq and the US using that as proof against the Iranians. How can that argument be justified but not the argument that I raised.

the problem lies with people. if they didn't have guns they would just use something else, like the knives etc. mentioned above, or chainsaws, which have been used in the UK and elsewhere no doubt. if i was going to get slotted, i would rather it was by instant death through shooting than by slowly bleeding to death through repeated stabbing. it's not a particularly subtle point, but the sad fact is that the world can be a sick, violent place

[dark matter]

My only dispute with your answer regarding chainsaws, knives, base ball bats or anything else that people have used to kill one another is that a gun is designed specifically to kill. An Uzi sub machine gun shoots a ridiculous amount of bullets per second and has the sole purpose of killing another human being. Its not for sport or past time it is a killing machine. These weapons have some how found their way onto the streets so there must be a link in the chain of distribution and or supply that needs to be investigated and held accountable. It sounds ironic that gun manufacturers should have a 'duty of care' but it should be something enforced and punishable. Is there any theoretical legal argument for this???

[Mongrel]

My only dispute with your answer regarding chainsaws, knives, base ball bats or anything else that people have used to kill one another is that a gun is designed specifically to kill.

Don't forget that bows are still legal over here, they can kill just as well, are silent and (IIRC) there's virtually no licensing needed - just sign the dealers book. Many people own a gun or guns for legitimate purposes; some people like shooting targets as a test of skill, some use firearms for game hunting and others have replica firearms and cannon for various re-enactment purposes.

[Araneus]

So then if you go back to my point about Iranian made guns used against American and UK soldiers in Iraq and the US using that as proof against the Iranians. How can that argument be justified but not the argument that I raised.

Who says it can? It's a different argument made by different people; in general I consider anything the US government says (and to a lesser extent the UK government) to be false until proven true.

If you are saying that logically the US government should blame their own gun manufacturers if they are also going to blame Iranian manufacturers, then this is probably true. I don't agree with either though.

[Tin Lizzie]

Who says it can? It's a different argument made by different people; in general I consider anything the US government says (and to a lesser extent the UK government) to be false until proven true.

If you are saying that logically the US government should blame their own gun manufacturers if they are also going to blame Iranian manufacturers, then this is probably true. I don't agree with either though.

it's worth bearing in mind that there is a civil war raging on iran's doorstep - to compare domestic US gun crime with iranian influence in iraq is somewhat tangential. no doubts the big-bucks arms industry has much to answer for, but for me personally people will just resort to other means. also, how is there any way for manufacturers to have control over subsequent selling-on by their purchasing clients? a little bit like rogue nukes (only a little bit)

[dark matter]

I was told by another skeptic that the true reason that gun manufacturers can never be held accountable is because they are the same people that defend countries in times of war. So in closing this thread I yield to the fact that there really is no solution to gun crime and that no one can be even partially held accountable. It is inevitable and tragically ironic and probably only an issue with me because its on my doorstep. I suppose guns in my community can be seen by the manufacturers as a form of recycling and therefore 'good for the environment'. So I would like to dedicate this thread to: Gloch, Sig Sauer, Smith and Wesson, Browning, Colt, Kaleshnikoff (sic), AK, Desert Eagle, UZi, Mack and any other guns in my neighbourhood that I forgot... 'Thank you. My neighbourhood would not be the same without you'

[bobdezon]

Its an illogical train of thought to blame gun manufacturers for gun crime. It seems to me its the age old method of passing the responsibility onto someone else rather than the perpetrator of gun crime. Would we also try to sue a baseball bat company if a baseball bat was used as a weapon? or a hammer manufacturer for DIY broken fingers?

The people using the guns should be held accountable not the manufacturers

[dark matter]

Its an illogical train of thought to blame gun manufacturers for gun crime. It seems to me its the age old method of passing the responsibility onto someone else rather than the perpetrator of gun crime. Would we also try to sue a baseball bat company if a baseball bat was used as a weapon? or a hammer manufacturer for DIY broken fingers?

The people using the guns should be held accountable not the manufacturers

So why bother target drug suppliers or dealers if only the end user should be blamed. Its a total contradiction in terms. Blame Iranians for supplying guns to Iraqis and now read the Sunday Times;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2558291.ece

(Although this deals mainly with replica guns...the principle is correct)

Am I still alone on this??? Is there anybody out there???

Seems there is a movement. Tighter controls are required and more accountability. It would be naive to think that gun crime can ever be stopped but at least a 'Name and Shame Chart' ofthe gun manufacturers that have the biggest presence in our 'civil' society.

1.........................
2.........................
3.........................
4.........................
5.........................

Can anyone fill in the gaps.

[bobdezon]

thats a bit of a twist to my point though. If a person goes out and gets stoned and falls asleep big whoop. If however a person goes out and scores PCP and puts his fist through the back of a young womans head, then he and not the drug dealer/supplier should be held accountable for the end result.

If there is a demand there will always be a supply, if no demand exists then then it naturally follows that it would be unprofitable to persist in selling drugs.