Opinions on Gun manufacturers and guilt.

[FN1910]

"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

I saw this sig line on a post that I will not name and it really got me to thinking about the guilt of the mamufacturer. I agree totally with the thought behind the quote and feel that the gun maker bear no guilt in most cases but consider this. What if someone comes to you and asks you to build a bomb for them and you aske for what. They say that they are going to blow up someone and you and they go through with it. A person is killed, so do you, as the manufacturer, bear some of the blame on this. I realize this is an apples vs. oranges deal but not necessarily completely.

I once had someone call me to find out how to tap a telephone. I told them it was illegal but they said they weren't going to use it. Next think I knew I was about to be involved in the middle of a divorce lawsuit. The above quote makes sense but what if the sword maker is making one for a women to kill her husband and he knows what it it intended for? Anyone remember the one in the "Kill Bill" movie?

[wolfhunter]

Building or providing something (or the instructions to build it) that you know will be used for an illegal purpose is called "Conspiring to commit". Gun manufacturers build their products for legal uses and should not be held accountable for the mis-use of their product. If someone were to use the bag from their dry cleaning to smother a sleeping spouse, is the dry cleaner guilty?

[Ektarr]

So then automobile manufacturers are responsible for drunk driving deaths and for providing the means for a getaway after a bank job, or for delivering drugs? After all, they know that SOMEone is going to use them for that.

Naah . . . Not working for me.

If you disagree, think about this -- imagine that someone decides that you . . . you, personally . . . should have no driving privileges, and have your car taken away. After all...if it saves just one life...

[FN1910]

So then automobile manufacturers are responsible for drunk driving deaths and for providing the means for a getaway after a bank job, or for delivering drugs? After all, they know that SOMEone is going to use them for that.

Naah . . . Not working for me.

How about if you armor plate a car for a drug dealer or bank robber? A manufacturer cannot be relieved of blame in all cases.

[FN1910]

Building or providing something (or the instructions to build it) that you know will be used for an illegal purpose is called "Conspiring to commit". Gun manufacturers build their products for legal uses and should not be held accountable for the mis-use of their product. If someone were to use the bag from their dry cleaning to smother a sleeping spouse, is the dry cleaner guilty?

In that case I doubt it but the manufacturers of plastic bags have paid a lot out in cases where someone has died from being suffocated from those bags. Ever notice the warning lables on them.

[Ektarr]

How about if you armor plate a car for a drug dealer or bank robber? A manufacturer cannot be relieved of blame in all cases.

Once again, the firearms manufacturer is not building their product for the felon, any more than the auto maker is building a car for the drunk driver. It's the intent that's in question here...not the misuse/abuse.

Besides, there's no Constitutional Right to rob banks or deal in illegal drugs, unlike the Right to Keep and Bear. There's not even a Constitutional Right to Drive.

[ronwill]

If the manufacturer is selling their product within the law, that is to those legally able to possess it, then no they are not to blame for misuse of their product. This holds true for a gun manufacturer that sells their guns to legal distributors as well as auto manufacturers that legally sell their vehicle. You don't hold Ford responsible if one of their vehicles is used in a bank robbery so why hold Colt responsible if one of their AR-15's is used in crime. This holds true as long as the manufacturer did not knowingly sell to a criminal party.

[Ceicei]

I believe the majority of those who legally purchase firearms for defensive purposes do so with the intent to live, not the intent to kill.

- Ceicei

[ricbak]

Good Thread HK..
I can understand is a Manufacturer is cutting corners and causes harm. I can not fathum how a company who is doing it's due diligence in manufacturing, distribution and sales can be held responsible for some ones elses misue.

[Boomboy007]

I would totally reject the notion of inherent evil. To attribute evil to inanimate objects is, in my mind, lazy and stupid. I don't believe that most felons were good boys and girls but, because they suddenly found a gun in their hand, they suddenly decided to go murder/rape/steal. If they had the weakness of character that compelled them to victimize someone, they will find a tool with which to perpetrate that victimization.

For me, knowledge is the same. Just because I might know how to build a nuclear weapon (I don't, but I understand that it is actually not that difficult) doesn't mean that I would suddenly be overcome with the urge to commit an act of massive destruction.

To utilize one of the examples given, I believe that almost all of the cases where a person has been killed by a dry cleaner garment bag have involved the accidental asphyxiation of children. In my mind, the fault actually lies with the parent who failed to keep that item out of the hands of their child. Lazy parenting begets tragedy, whether it be a dead toddler, or a felonious teenager.

We have become a nation of victims, even those of us who claim not to buy into the victim mentality. It is not "we" who are letting our second amendment rights be taken, it is "they" who are doing it to us.

I am the worst one.

Well, there have been a few on this board who have shown me the way (Thanks, Festus!). I am now churning out the letters, visiting the offices, and preparing even now to have a little walk around (with sign) of my congress person's campaign office.

I am not going to take it anymore.