Should gun/cigarette manufacturing companies be held responsible?
0
Do you think that gun/cigarette manufacturing companies ought to share responsibility in deaths, which occur through smoking/gun violence?
Personally I think gun manufacturing companies should be held responsible for the deaths that occur through their product in certain scenarios. If a man buys a gun and then proceeds to kill his family the company that sold him said fire-arm should be liable. However, if a man buys a gun then sells it to a man who then proceeds to kill his family I don't feel the company should be liable just the man who bought the gun initially.
As for cigarettes... I think its the individuals choice though it may have been influenced. The company shouldn't be at all liable.
What are your views on the matter?
Personally I think gun manufacturing companies should be held responsible for the deaths that occur through their product in certain scenarios. If a man buys a gun and then proceeds to kill his family the company that sold him said fire-arm should be liable. However, if a man buys a gun then sells it to a man who then proceeds to kill his family I don't feel the company should be liable just the man who bought the gun initially.
As for cigarettes... I think its the individuals choice though it may have been influenced. The company shouldn't be at all liable.
What are your views on the matter?
0
tsuyoshiro
FAKKU Writer
Wait, you say its the individuals choice if they buy cigarettes, but when the individual buys a gun, the company should be liable for any carnage that ensues? There are plenty of safe-guards in place when buying guns, and yes, ultimately alot of them are still going to end up in the hands of a murderer. There's nothing you can do about it as long as guns exist. And if they didn't there's knifes, and hundreds of other methods to kill people, so it seems silly to blame a gun manufacturer for providing an alternate method of murder.
0
Harmonian wrote...
Personally I think gun manufacturing companies should be held responsible for the deaths that occur through their product in certain scenarios. If a man buys a gun and then proceeds to kill his family the company that sold him said fire-arm should be liable. However, if a man buys a gun then sells it to a man who then proceeds to kill his family I don't feel the company should be liable just the man who bought the gun initially.Wut!? So if the man 1 buys gun from company, then sells it to man 2, who then sells
it to man 3, then going along with the pattern man 2 is responsible. You say if man 1 buys a gun the company is responsible, yet if man number 2 gets the gun, the company isn't. That doesn't seem very consistent since the company was the one initially offered to sell the gun to begin with.
Harmonian wrote...
As for cigarettes... I think its the individuals choice though it may have been influenced. The company shouldn't be at all liable.Cigarettes fuck up people's lives. Guns fuck up people's lives. Gun company responsible. Cigarette company, not so much. That's inconsistent. Why not just apply the same thing to both where either the company is responsible or it's the individuals choice.
Spoiler:
0
@tsuyoshiro - Sure you can kill someone with a knife if you don't have a gun, but the act of killing with a gun is much more... how should I say, impulsive? With a knife, you have to approach the guy (assuming you have someone on your black list), and then stab him to death. With the gun you just have to shoot once (from afar if you want), and that's that. An easyer way to kill. And I think the manufacturers and the distributors are to blame for it (some part, cuz there would still be people killing in other methods if no guns were around).
0
tsuyoshiro wrote...
Wait, you say its the individuals choice if they buy cigarettes, but when the individual buys a gun, the company should be liable for any carnage that ensues? There are plenty of safe-guards in place when buying guns, and yes, ultimately alot of them are still going to end up in the hands of a murderer. There's nothing you can do about it as long as guns exist. And if they didn't there's knifes, and hundreds of other methods to kill people, so it seems silly to blame a gun manufacturer for providing an alternate method of murder.Well not many individuals have the choice of getting shot or not getting shot at by someone who had the choice whether or not to buy a gun. If someone commits suicide I don't think the company should be liable.
0
Harmonian wrote...
Well not many individuals have the choice of getting shot or not getting shot at by someone who had the choice whether or not to buy a gun.I don't get you. If you say that a dude had a choice then don't blame the company.
0
Harmonian wrote...
Well not many individuals have the choice of getting shot or not getting shot at by someone who had the choice whether or not to buy a gun. If someone commits suicide I don't think the company should be liable.What about the effects of passive smoking, then?
0
The situation, with the selling of guns and all, confused me. However, I was able to come to a decision of voting no for both.
Cigarette ads are illegal, last I checked (or at least commercials that promote them are). So that shouldn't be an issue, cigarette companies leading one to smoke. Plus people choose to smoke, why blame the companies? They don't make people smoke. They make a living off of smoking people.
The same can be said toward businesses that sell guns who don't shoot people, but enable it
Cigarette ads are illegal, last I checked (or at least commercials that promote them are). So that shouldn't be an issue, cigarette companies leading one to smoke. Plus people choose to smoke, why blame the companies? They don't make people smoke. They make a living off of smoking people.
The same can be said toward businesses that sell guns who don't shoot people, but enable it
0
gibbous wrote...
What about the effects of passive smoking, then?Well certain stores have smoking sections and such as well as just no-smoking.
rbz123 wrote...
I don't get you. If you say that a dude had a choice then don't blame the company.I'm trying to get this message across. When someone buys a cigarette they don't intend to smoke it and kill the people around them. If they themselves fall ill it was there own choice. With guns, if someone buys a gun to shoot up a store its his choice to buy the gun. The people in the store he shoots up don't have a choice whether to die or not (I mean no offense in saying this but I'm putting it very stupidly on purpose). The company should never have sold the man the gun.
0
Harmonian wrote...
The company should never have sold the man the gun.Not just anyone can get a gun you know, since you have to get a license first. I doubt they give licenses to crazies but if he didn't seem crazy at first, then I don't blame them.(after tests and shit) If a guy buys a gun and "chooses" to kill a motherfucker, then I understand if you say that the company is partially responsible, but in no way is the company to blame for the dude's "choice" to kill.
0
tsuyoshiro
FAKKU Writer
Harmonian wrote...
gibbous wrote...
What about the effects of passive smoking, then?Well certain stores have smoking sections and such as well as just no-smoking.
rbz123 wrote...
I don't get you. If you say that a dude had a choice then don't blame the company.I'm trying to get this message across. When someone buys a cigarette they don't intend to smoke it and kill the people around them. If they themselves fall ill it was there own choice. With guns, if someone buys a gun to shoot up a store its his choice to buy the gun. The people in the store he shoots up don't have a choice whether to die or not (I mean no offense in saying this but I'm putting it very stupidly on purpose). The company should never have sold the man the gun.
So ultimately, you're saying that guns simply shouldn't be sold. After all, how is the company supposed to know? Each year, they sell plenty of firearms to people who simply want to protect their home, and during purchase, you can't exactly tell a perfectly sane person from someone who is about to shoot up their home. Well, at least not always. The manufacturer can only do so much to prevent tragedy from happening, but in the end they are just handing over a product, and like any product, it has the chance of being abused.
edit: pretty much what rbz said, yeah
0
Harmonian wrote...
The company should never have sold the man the gun.So you'd blame a toy company if someone used their bb guns to shoot someone in the eyes and cripple them for the rest of their life?
0
Harmonian wrote...
Well certain stores have smoking sections and such as well as just no-smoking.Most of the world is a no-shooting zone, save for firing ranges. Still people get shot outside firing ranges. Still people smoke passively, and not by their own choice, outside of designated smoking sections.
I honestly don't see how holding gunsmiths responsible but not tobacconists works out. Either you hold everyone responsible for other people's actions, from gun manufacturers to cutlery manufacturers - or none of them! Choose your master!
0
Whatever happened to guns don't kill people, people do?
Should gun manufactures be held responsible no they should not. The person who should be held responsible is the murder.
As for cigarette companies no they shouldn’t either it’s a person’s choice to smoke or be around someone who smokes. People all want someone to blame for their problems because they don’t want to blame themselves. We are to the point where there are very few people who were not alerted to the danger of smoking it's their choice their problem.
Why not hold the person responsible instead?
Should gun manufactures be held responsible no they should not. The person who should be held responsible is the murder.
As for cigarette companies no they shouldn’t either it’s a person’s choice to smoke or be around someone who smokes. People all want someone to blame for their problems because they don’t want to blame themselves. We are to the point where there are very few people who were not alerted to the danger of smoking it's their choice their problem.
gibbous wrote...
Either you hold everyone responsible for other people's actions, Why not hold the person responsible instead?
0
GinIchimaru_09 wrote...
As for cigarette companies no they shouldn’t either it’s a person’s choice to smoke or be around someone who smokes.Often enough it is not. Plenty of people work in places where there's a lot of cigarette-smoking. It's somewhat cynical to call it "their choice", because the only choice they have is between being around smokers - or being unemployed.
0
gibbous wrote...
because the only choice they have is between being around smokers - or being unemployed.Or not breathing at all.
GinIchimaru_09 wrote...
gibbous wrote...
Either you hold everyone responsible for other people's actions, Why not hold the person responsible instead?
I'm sure he believes that as well(maybe not), but I think his sentence was a stab at Harmonian's inconsistency/indecisiveness. Like what I did.
0
rbz did a splendid job (thanks) of answering the question I overlooked, so I'll just refer you to his post.
high fives all around.
high fives all around.
0
Cigarettes can only be used to harm people, they cannot possibly be used for anything good, while guns can be used to protect yourself and others.
I say hold the tobacco companies responsible, but not the gun makers.
I say hold the tobacco companies responsible, but not the gun makers.
0
Seph wrote...
Cigarettes can only be used to harm people, they cannot possibly be used for anything good, while guns can be used to protect yourself and others.I say hold the tobacco companies responsible, but not the gun makers.
Lol! Harmonian's opposite.
Cigarettes can be used for something good, like filling up the lungs of a person with smoke relieving them of stress and the need for more nicotine at that moment. Good is just what you want it to be.
0
rbz123 wrote...
Seph wrote...
Cigarettes can only be used to harm people, they cannot possibly be used for anything good, while guns can be used to protect yourself and others.I say hold the tobacco companies responsible, but not the gun makers.
Lol! Harmonian's opposite.
Cigarettes can be used for something good, like filling up the lungs of a person with smoke relieving them of stress and the need for more nicotine at that moment. Good is just what you want it to be.
But there are better alternatives(Nikotine plasters, or gum) :p