The following is a 3 message exchange between 4 users
@9CCZLSZ11mos11MO
If you buy a vehicle and run it through a parade of innocent people would you sue the car manufacturer? 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?
@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.
.
