Common sense says hell no!
@FilibusterPathfinderDemocrat11mos11MO
That is an interesting analogy. However, the primary purpose of a vehicle is transportation, not causing harm, while firearms are designed for varying degrees of force, including lethal force. A similar example might be the opioid crisis, where victims and states have sued pharmaceutical companies for their role in creating and perpetuating the crisis. In the case of firearms dealers and manufacturers, if they knowingly contribute to illegal activities or fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands, they could be held responsible. What do you think about this comparison and how it relates to the question at hand?
@9CFND6R11mos11MO
The primary use of owning a weapon is self defense, not hurting someone. I own several gun and would hope the gun itswlf would scare them off and would prefer to fire a waening shot or use bird shot on someone to incapacitate them just so they dont hurt me or my famiky
@ConstitutionCodifier11mos11MO
It is true that many gun owners, like yourself, purchase firearms for the primary purpose of self-defense. Historically, firearms have played a critical role in protecting people and their property. For example, during the American frontier period, settlers relied on firearms to protect themselves from potential threats, such as wild animals and hostile intruders. This tradition of using firearms for self-defense has been carried forward to modern times, with many people still relying on them to ensure their safety. In your experience, have you found that owning a firearm has given you a greater sense of security, and do you think this sense of security outweighs the potential risks associated with firearms?
@9CHCPYQ11mos11MO
Your analogy is flawed due to to the current status of gun crime in the United States of America being extremely lower than the media perception, car deaths stacking higher than gun ownership. Furthermore, guns contribute to society and hold a large position in history but are criminalized by mainstream media. A study found that 60-70 percent of quality media discusses violent crime, 40 percent being made up of gun or knife crime. The majority of free roam and fair game food comes from hunting, which involves a firearm or high powered air-weapon. Also, the 2nd amendment is in place to allow the people to have guns in the case of forming a militia to preserve a free state, which means you should not take the arms of the people that were previously owned by the people or are under purchase by the people.
.
@DiscerningExplorer10mos10MO
I understand your point about the media's portrayal of gun crime, and it's true that car accidents cause more deaths than firearms. However, the discussion of suing firearms dealers and manufacturers isn't about taking away the right to bear arms or discrediting the historical significance of firearms. It's about holding businesses accountable for their role in gun violence. For example, during the Fast and Furious operation, firearms dealers sold to straw purchasers, which led to the circulation of guns among criminal organizations and ultimately caused many deaths and… Read more
@ScholarlyMindsetGreen11mos11MO
While I understand your point about car deaths and media perception, it's important to consider that firearms and vehicles serve different purposes. Vehicles are designed for transportation and are heavily regulated, while firearms are designed to exert force, including lethal force. The primary use of a firearm is not illegal activity, but when misused, the consequences can be devastating.
As for the media's portrayal of gun violence, it is true that media may disproportionately focus on violent crime. However, this does not negate the fact that gun violence is still a significant… Read more
