6 ms·

Can you explain your position? Should Colt be blamed if a foreign government uses an M-16 to shoot a journalist?

by maltalex 5y ago

user-the-name 5y ago
Yes. My position is that I don't think we should be making tools designed for killing people.
- gowld 5y ago
  So only criminals should have weapons? Who will stop the criminals, without weapons?
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    Why do we have violent criminals? Also, there actually aren't that many versus say gun sales. Can we push the number of violent criminals to 0? Maybe not, but we could greatly reduce the numbers with more intelligent social policies (in the US or Canada, say). The wild-west mentally and the fact that it has been co-opted by certain political groups actually leads to more crime and more fear (which sells guns and regressive politics). What if no one lived in a state or neighbourhood so shitty that they felt the need to arm up? What if they had not been indoctrinated since birth with a wild-west mentality that linked gun-ownership to freedom? The "only criminals will have weapons" argument is a really low-quality surface-level distraction from getting to grips with problems we could actually solve.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Where would the criminals get them, if they are not made?
  - diffeomorphism 5y ago
    Yes, only criminals and police. And black market weapons are expensive, so they are also very hard to get for criminals. This works very well in many, many other countries. As a particularly interesting example: Japan has almost no gun crime at all: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 > In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US.
- crazy1van 5y ago
  This is a utopian fantasy. Humans have been making tools for killing people since we were living in caves.
- adi831997 5y ago
  I think with the dual-use tools, it's more about the user instead of the inanimate tool itself
srean 5y ago
My take here is a little nuanced. Simply for manufacturing, perhaps not. Decisions of this kind I would settle case by case, chemical warfare agents, "no", tear gas, may be 'yes' with well laid out legal checks and balances, 'rubber bullets' more checks and balances needed, etc., etc. Sales, whether direct or through indirectly supported wink-wink business and other organizational structures, to entities who have well documented cases of abuse -- that's a different matter. If Colt is found doing that, I would definitely find them culpable and guilty. For NSO, Candiru and their ilk, my belief is that they are in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge relationship with the user's of the tools (usually oppressive governments) as well as Israel's intelligence complex (they are the ones clearing the sales). Can I prove this in a court, no. Does not stop me from forming informed opinions though.
shadilay 5y ago
If colt maintains a list of journalists to be shot, probably.
beckman466 5y ago
Those two are not comparable at all. One is a multinational corporation with untold influence which hoards exploits for black box software and hardware. The other is a producer of physical weapons, which are subject to laws to protect civilians - although of course where these laws apply is hypocritical, since the West's weapons have been used to kill many civilians during all the 'peacekeeping' missions by the US (read: interventionism).
- user-the-name 5y ago
  If anything, that is worse. Colt intentionally made a tool that is only designed for killing people, and it was used to kill someone. To me, it's hard to justify why they are not responsible.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > Colt intentionally made a tool that is only designed for killing people, and it was used to kill someone. You could say the same about a knife though, or a brick. I think you're underestimating the power of the spyware that is being used today to blackmail and control those in power.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      A knife or a brick are not (with a few exceptions) tools that are only designed for killing people, so no, I could not say that about them. (However, if you do sell a "Throat-cutting knife" for cutting people's throats, and someone buys it and cuts somebody's throat, then hell yes you are responsible for that.)
      - IndySun 5y ago
        >if you do sell a "Throat-cutting knife" ... you are responsible for that. Interesting thought. I can't find an example in law. I'm not so sure the seller is responsible on any level once sold, even with that murdering tagline. Guns are sold as lethal force and users are fully responsible post sale.
diffeomorphism 5y ago
Yes, that is why there are export restrictions on arms deals. In particular, your company is not allowed to sell to those states which are known to use violence against journalists. So not only is this a reasonable position, it is the law in several countries, e.g. Heckler&Koch is a German gun manufacturer and has to obey such laws.

Can you explain your position? Should Colt be blamed if a foreign government uses an M-16 to shoot a journalist?

user-the-name 5y ago

Yes. My position is that I don't think we should be making tools designed for killing people.

gowld 5y ago
So only criminals should have weapons? Who will stop the criminals, without weapons?
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  Why do we have violent criminals? Also, there actually aren't that many versus say gun sales. Can we push the number of violent criminals to 0? Maybe not, but we could greatly reduce the numbers with more intelligent social policies (in the US or Canada, say). The wild-west mentally and the fact that it has been co-opted by certain political groups actually leads to more crime and more fear (which sells guns and regressive politics). What if no one lived in a state or neighbourhood so shitty that they felt the need to arm up? What if they had not been indoctrinated since birth with a wild-west mentality that linked gun-ownership to freedom? The "only criminals will have weapons" argument is a really low-quality surface-level distraction from getting to grips with problems we could actually solve.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Where would the criminals get them, if they are not made?
- diffeomorphism 5y ago
  Yes, only criminals and police. And black market weapons are expensive, so they are also very hard to get for criminals. This works very well in many, many other countries. As a particularly interesting example: Japan has almost no gun crime at all: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729 > In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US.
crazy1van 5y ago
This is a utopian fantasy. Humans have been making tools for killing people since we were living in caves.
adi831997 5y ago
I think with the dual-use tools, it's more about the user instead of the inanimate tool itself

srean 5y ago

My take here is a little nuanced. Simply for manufacturing, perhaps not. Decisions of this kind I would settle case by case, chemical warfare agents, "no", tear gas, may be 'yes' with well laid out legal checks and balances, 'rubber bullets' more checks and balances needed, etc., etc. Sales, whether direct or through indirectly supported wink-wink business and other organizational structures, to entities who have well documented cases of abuse -- that's a different matter. If Colt is found doing that, I would definitely find them culpable and guilty. For NSO, Candiru and their ilk, my belief is that they are in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge relationship with the user's of the tools (usually oppressive governments) as well as Israel's intelligence complex (they are the ones clearing the sales). Can I prove this in a court, no. Does not stop me from forming informed opinions though.

shadilay 5y ago

If colt maintains a list of journalists to be shot, probably.

beckman466 5y ago

Those two are not comparable at all. One is a multinational corporation with untold influence which hoards exploits for black box software and hardware. The other is a producer of physical weapons, which are subject to laws to protect civilians - although of course where these laws apply is hypocritical, since the West's weapons have been used to kill many civilians during all the 'peacekeeping' missions by the US (read: interventionism).

user-the-name 5y ago
If anything, that is worse. Colt intentionally made a tool that is only designed for killing people, and it was used to kill someone. To me, it's hard to justify why they are not responsible.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > Colt intentionally made a tool that is only designed for killing people, and it was used to kill someone. You could say the same about a knife though, or a brick. I think you're underestimating the power of the spyware that is being used today to blackmail and control those in power.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    A knife or a brick are not (with a few exceptions) tools that are only designed for killing people, so no, I could not say that about them. (However, if you do sell a "Throat-cutting knife" for cutting people's throats, and someone buys it and cuts somebody's throat, then hell yes you are responsible for that.)
    - IndySun 5y ago
      >if you do sell a "Throat-cutting knife" ... you are responsible for that. Interesting thought. I can't find an example in law. I'm not so sure the seller is responsible on any level once sold, even with that murdering tagline. Guns are sold as lethal force and users are fully responsible post sale.

diffeomorphism 5y ago

Yes, that is why there are export restrictions on arms deals. In particular, your company is not allowed to sell to those states which are known to use violence against journalists. So not only is this a reasonable position, it is the law in several countries, e.g. Heckler&Koch is a German gun manufacturer and has to obey such laws.