This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
The gun control advocacy group Giffords's new executive director, Emma Brown, laments that "we still live in an age where you can’t sue a gun company after a mass shooting in most cases and in most states. " (Source: How the Gun-Reform Movement Can Finally “Break” the Grip of the Firearm Lobby | Vanity Fair (archive.is))
I fail to understand, why should gun manufacturers be sued for mass shootings?
The logic is similar to how we've tried to handle cigarettes - there is no "safe" way to utilize the product being sold, it's just a dangerous product that hurts people therefore anyone selling it should be liable for the damage it causes.
From the point of view of advocates of gun control, guns are just inherently dangerous by virtue of existing and serve no purpose other than creating harm.
I 1,000% do not agree with that perspective but it does make a certain type of sense.
I think that's disingenuous, however, because there are very clear cut uses for firearms aside from needless harm and there are ways to enjoy or just utilize firearms that don't inherently lead to harm.
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 1 year ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/PoliticalDe...