Do you think that gun/cigarette manufacturing companies...?

Terrible idea. That'd be like blaming lingerie manufacturers every time a hooker gets busted/gives some an STD.

For me, it boils down to greater need. Do I need a cigarette and ruin my prefectly healthy cardiovascular system? No. Do I need a gun to defend myself whenever possible? Very likely. I have to say that gun companies are a must and shouldn't be held responsible.

This all boils down into this equation;

Should subject A be held responsible for the actions of subject B?

Common sense would dictate that no, they shouldn't be. Under this logic if you believe that either Cigarette or Gun manufactures should be held liable then when a toddler swallows a chemical product such as Drain-O should they(the company) be held liable due to the child swallowing it? While someone may argue "accidental vs intentional" this argument is rendered invalid for gun manufacturers (or sellers) there are several regulations such as holding periods on fire arms, back ground checks, limits to the amount of guns or ammunition that one can purchase within a given month. These restrictions prevent then impulsive actions of somebody from just getting a gun and using it on somebody.

Cigarette companies on the other hand take a slightly different formula. Which asks the question. Should a company be able to make a profit based on the decision of a person that leads to the detriment of that persons health. Not talking about second hand smoke just the act of one person smoking. For this example the individual who smokes only smoked in an isolated room with no possibility of another person being harmed by the second hand. For that, the company should be allowed to sell cigarettes. Why? The reason is that the person who choose to smoke made the choice by themselves. The company didn't light their first cigarette nor did the company force them to use their product which lead to the detriment of their health.

McDonalds was held liable in court because somebody make the choice to eat nothing but, McDonald's food for several years. Does punishing the company for the personal choice of a single individual seem right? The company didn't force this man to eat their food. Nothing stopped him from bringing a sandwich or a microwave dinner from home but, this man chose to eat their food everyday.

So, for cigarettes...Should they be punished for a persons decision? Logic says no.

So why would somebody want these companies shut down? One reason, morality and gentlemen...

Lady justice doesn't give a damn about morality.

Now we come to the problem of what morality is, because it varies from person to person. What one may find a morally repugnant idea another may praise.

I've already debated half of this verbally, but oh well.

If gun manufacturers had not gone through regulations and safety precautions, then yes. I would say that they are handing out weapons without any type of caution and should face punishment.

However, since they do they can't be held responsible since they have done their part in preventing misuse of weapons. They can't babysit the damned buyers.

Smoking is another issue, however. I don't think the cigarette companies should be liable from health diseases caused by cigarettes, I just think they should be shut down instead.

Every single fact points to cigarettes as harmful to your health and others around you. Yes. The law has seriously cracked down and made it so smokers can only smoke in certain places.

The argument I already know is coming:
"Well, if they take cigarettes off the market, because they know its harmful, then junk food should too. You can't take away one and not all."

What about lead paint? Mercury? Coke in coca cola ;p

The coke one is the biggest. That sure as fuck was a stimulant for people. But due to the health problems, it's gone.

For christ's sake - weed is less harmful than cigarettes.

Dude walks into a car dealership which is owned by GM. Buys a hummer cause it's gangsta and he cares not for the environment. His records were clean and he had a drivers license(duh). A week later, he felt different; he felt, angry. Got into his hummer, put on some death metal and started mowing people off the sidewalk. When S.W.A.T.(too much?) rammed the fucker off the road, they finally arrested the fuck. 87 people severely injured and 10 deaths. Who to put the blame on?

To take the stance of the advocatus diaboli: A car is principally designed to move people and/or goods from A to B. Using it to murder people not the expected use case.
A gun is principally designed to wound and/or kill. Using it to shoot someone is the expected use case.
Therefore, a car manufacturer could argue that the incident in question was a case of misuse on the customer's behalf, while a gun manufacturer could not.

Nice example. Gun dealers do their part in prevention as it is.





Guns are mainly bought for simple protection at home, or even more commonly for hunting (animals.)
Are you stating that anyone who has a gun should be expected to kill somebody?

aside: I also figured out in philosophy class that analogies aren't perfect since there's always "something" different.

If they go through all the check ups and regulations before giving away the gun, then yes, the gun manufacturer should be able to argue that it was misuse on the customer's behalf.

People also forget that guns are used more often for sport (not counting the military). As I said before if used smartly (don't do a Dick Chaney) no one is harmed while using a gun unless you're going to argue the death of animals.

Even so, what they are bought for is besides the point; there are people who buy lawn-mowers to cut their hedges with and then wonder what the fuck when they lose their fingers. The point was the primary design purpose, and in guns and ammunition that commonly is, as stated, to wound and/or kill. You can like that or not, you may intend to use it differently, but that's the principal idea of a gun: To inflict wounds over a distance. The principal idea of a car is not.


Kill? No, because not every shot hits, and not every hit is lethal.
Shoot at? With the possible exception of hunting rifles, yeah, to some degree. Crime = opportunity+motive. A loaded gun is the opportunity, and knowing humans, motives may well come along sooner or later. What you then make of that expectation is a completely different question and depends on your taste for either authoritarianism or liberalism. But expected to shoot they should be.

It's idealistic to believe that nobody should own a gun.
It's also ludicrous to believe that everyone who owns a weapon is going to shoot somebody.

Just because somebody owns a weapon does not mean they want to hurt somebody. It's more of a safety precaution. A if this ever happens, and I ever get into a very serious situation.

For example: I know an Italian man who owns his own little restaurant. He keeps a pistol under the table for the cash register in case one night somebody decides to come in and try to rob him.
Just because he has the gun, doesn't mean he is just itching for the day to come for somebody to do it so he can shoot them.

And also, just because somebody has a gun, doesn't mean it's loaded. Many people carry guns just to scare off anything that would come their way. Doesn't mean they have to shoot, right?

People are the problem here - not the weapon. It's people who make the decision to terrorize. It's people who decide to pull the trigger, and it's people who decide to buy the weapon.

What part of the gun does anything? It's an object.

I think you're making a point that doesn't have to do with what he's saying. The point is that they were designed to kill stuff. The using it for sports stuff is up to you, but when someone says they need it for protection then your expectation is that the next time they use that gun, it will be for violence.

Again rbz beats me to the punch. Rbz, you interested in a job?

I'll take the liberty of quoting my previous post:


I addressed your other points nonetheless, because I felt it would be impolite not to:

Off topic:

Off topic:

"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns"

Here in America, only a small percent of legally bought guns are ever used to commit a crime either through acts of desperation of impulse. So should those few people who break the law with their guns spoil it for everybody? Why should a law abiding citizen have to pay for the actions of somebody else who made a poor choice? The formula is

Subject (A) harms Subject (B) so by the actions of Subject (A) we should punish Subjects C,D,E,F,etc. Another example of this is what RBZ gave, If somebody killed somebody with an object anything from a paperclip to a chainsaw then by the same formula you would have to ban the use of that item for everybody else.

On the topic of gang violence and other peoples uses of the weapon. Even if you somehow managed to ban every single firearm from the hands of citizens, close down gun and bullet manufacturers have tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. Then the gangs and drug cartels will still have guns and bullets. They will have better stuff than the police departments and still almost on part with the military when it comes to small arms. The correct (and most intelligent) solution is these people are breaking the law by themselves. You punish them for misuse of firearms not the average citizen who purchased a gun in order to feel safe, to hunt for food or whatever legal reason they have for deciding to own a firearm.

Regardless of your philosophy The Bill of rights says clearly that we have a right to own a gun to protect themselves. There is no argument to be had on this line of thought. The founding fathers knew what oppression meant and gave us the right to protect ourselves from threats outside the country and from within.

Yes, a gun is designed to wound or kill something but, sometimes you have to wound or kill something to feed or protect yourself or your family.

In the end, we have many regulations and controls on who purchases a gun to the ire of many anti-gun control people. Stores that skip or dismiss or otherwise ignore those regulations should be closed for breaking the law.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/323557_guns13.html

I don't know the facts about guns vs crimes vs whatever.

But, I do smoke.

I know smoking kills.

I know I can quit and save my life.

I know it's my fault.

for cigs because they know its addicting and people will die

Can't really place any blame on the companys themselves. Nobody makes you buy guns or cigerates. Now what needs to be done is really crack down on smokeing in public. Nothing pisses me off more then being around someone who's smokeing in public.