Can Anyone Explain Why Gun Manufacturers Shouldn't be Sued?

[Burinn]

Sorry I wasn't able to respond to any of you sooner, I've had a busy passed two days between class and taking care of a sick relative an hour away.

I honestly can't tell if this is an elaborate troll account or if you're one of those living parodies who doesn't recognize their nature.

Weak bait.

Weak bait.

yeah.

Look I don't know how many times I need to say this, but just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they are a troll. If you could stop shitposting this in every thread I make that'd be swell. I'm convinced you people just want to see your post count go something up at this point, but I digress.

I personally feel like, if someone is some how convinced that gun manufactures should be sued for doing legal business, then there is no way to convince them otherwise. The radical left is just that, radically left. No need to explain anything, you simply will not change your mind and arguments are moot.

imho.

I don't think I would ask this question in the first place unless I was curious to hear the otherside of the argument, which many have kindly given. These kinds of attitudes only help to strengthen partisan politics. And consequently their futility if you convince yourself the other side are lessers. But I guess that's why it's your opinion

because GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE.

Yes they do? Just like how knives or cars kill people.

If I want drama and autism I go to the moot section. GTFO with your politics!!!

There's no reason you can't be civil. If you don't want to contribute or read any of this, don't read or contribute?

Gist is: a group of activists planted wanted posters for the the members of two families who own the biggest privately owned weapons manufacturer in germany. Promising 25000€ reward for information that leads to conviction of them for crimes against humanity, with hand sketches of the faces of them. These appeared at places around where they lived and worked and put them into the spotlight of their communities, which prior to that mostly didn't know that these people profit from death and destruction.

Stuff like that works, suing dosn't since the military industrial complex took over a good part of the power a while ago...

Well put, it's a shame really.




My point, and evidently others since this makes national headlines, debates, ect. is the following: When a gun is used in a murder it is not being used for its intended purpose. That is to say there are not enough (whatever enough would actually be is up for debate) safety limitations preventing someone for using a firearm to commit murder. While firearms manufacturers enjoy a slew of legal protections because they don't sell weapons for murder but rather market them for self defense.

inb4 the forum has a stroke and acts like this is "radical left" when it's a mainline democratic party ideological talking point at the moment.

[shubla]

We could toss all refugees in america.
Then they would start fighting again, but this time theres atlantic ocean between EU and refugees so no major problems should occurr.

[sabinati]

because GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE.

Yes they do? Just like how knives or cars kill people.

no, idiot

[Ysh]

We could toss all refugees in america.
Then they would start fighting again, but this time theres atlantic ocean between EU and refugees so no major problems should occurr.

No thanks to you, this will be bad for my country I think.

[StaggerNight]

Yes they do? Just like how knives or cars kill people?
-Burinn




Pretty sure if thats the logic your gonna use. I need to stop buying cheese.


You can kill anybody with anything

[Burinn]

Yes they do? Just like how knives or cars kill people?
-Burinn




Pretty sure if thats the logic your gonna use. I need to stop buying cheese.


You can kill anybody with anything

That kind of logic is both asinine and pointlessly pedantic. Do bombs kill people? Yes they do. Do guns kill people? Yes they do. They're the instrument of murder. No one is arguing that they don't require some kind of human interaction for the killing to take place.

[Burinn]

You also sound far too young to be buying groceries for yourself StaggerNight

[shadowchris]

Guns don't have emotions. Guns don't have the intent to kill. Guns don't have psychological issues. So tell me how do guns kill people? If that's the case why do we throw people in jail and not weapons? People clearly aren't the ones doing the killing, it's the weapon right?

[Burinn]

Guns don't have emotions. Guns don't have the intent to kill. Guns don't have psychological issues. So tell me how do guns kill people? If that's the case why do we throw people in jail and not weapons? People clearly aren't the ones doing the killing, it's the weapon right?

That kind of logic is both asinine and pointlessly pedantic. Do bombs kill people? Yes they do. Do guns kill people? Yes they do. They're the instrument of murder. No one is arguing that they don't require some kind of human interaction for the killing to take place.

Not sure if you didn't read my post or you're trolling me.

[Ysh]

Guns don't have emotions. Guns don't have the intent to kill. Guns don't have psychological issues. So tell me how do guns kill people? If that's the case why do we throw people in jail and not weapons? People clearly aren't the ones doing the killing, it's the weapon right?

I want to previously inform my postings as saying that as a man who does American cultures, I will liking to own some guns. I think I can likely be in your side of these arguments.

But I do not think you will be fair with this one. Everyone is knowing that these guns cannot kill of their own accords. I think only some deluded people will think no man will need to be using them. But their argument is something like:

• Guns will letting crazy man kill many more people per time units than some knives or stones.
• Guns are made for killing some things and have not other functions.