4 ms·

I wonder why gun manufacturers aren't responsible for the behavior of their users, but this org is.

arcfour 1mo ago
Because you don't apply to a gun company to buy a gun. (You actually apply to the government...chew on that one for a while.)
- bakies 1mo ago
  Didn't need to chew, I already know the government doesn't do enough to curb gun violence.
- ThunderSizzle 1mo ago
  Well, in my state, you don't "apply" for a gun like you apply for a license. It is just document that you purchased it after the seller runs a background check. The government isn't attesting to your capabilities - that is still on you as a citizen.
  - Sharlin 1mo ago
    But that's an outlier. In normal countries you apply for a license, THEN after you get it, you're allowed to purchase a firearm.
  - hokumguru 1mo ago
    > you don't "apply" for a gun like you apply for a license. >... background check Who requires these background checks? Because the seller wouldn't do them unless obligated. Obviously the check and paperwork around it constitutes at least a de facto application to the government for permission to purchase the firearm.
mitxela 1mo ago
[dead]
mitxela 1mo ago
IIRC from the last A/I thread, there's actually a special law that basically says gun manufacturers are not liable for what people do with the guns, and says it specifically about guns, not any other industry.
- SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago
  No other industry needed that law. The PLCAA was put in place in 2005 because anti-gun specifically devised a plan to sue gun makers in lieu of any success in changing gun laws. It is absolute nonsense to ignore why the law exists while you complain about it existing.
  - fireflash38 1mo ago
    Why is it necessary to legislate it if it's nonsense? If there is no culpability, why would there be any threat?
    - SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago
      It was necessary because a group of billionaires (Joyce Foundation) decided they were going to do a run around congress and engage in lawfare for their goals. It’s nonsense to pretend it came out of no where for no reason.

Because you don't apply to a gun company to buy a gun. (You actually apply to the government...chew on that one for a while.)

bakies 1mo ago
Didn't need to chew, I already know the government doesn't do enough to curb gun violence.
ThunderSizzle 1mo ago
Well, in my state, you don't "apply" for a gun like you apply for a license. It is just document that you purchased it after the seller runs a background check. The government isn't attesting to your capabilities - that is still on you as a citizen.
- Sharlin 1mo ago
  But that's an outlier. In normal countries you apply for a license, THEN after you get it, you're allowed to purchase a firearm.
- hokumguru 1mo ago
  > you don't "apply" for a gun like you apply for a license. >... background check Who requires these background checks? Because the seller wouldn't do them unless obligated. Obviously the check and paperwork around it constitutes at least a de facto application to the government for permission to purchase the firearm.

mitxela 1mo ago

[dead]

mitxela 1mo ago

IIRC from the last A/I thread, there's actually a special law that basically says gun manufacturers are not liable for what people do with the guns, and says it specifically about guns, not any other industry.

SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago
No other industry needed that law. The PLCAA was put in place in 2005 because anti-gun specifically devised a plan to sue gun makers in lieu of any success in changing gun laws. It is absolute nonsense to ignore why the law exists while you complain about it existing.
- fireflash38 1mo ago
  Why is it necessary to legislate it if it's nonsense? If there is no culpability, why would there be any threat?
  - SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago
    It was necessary because a group of billionaires (Joyce Foundation) decided they were going to do a run around congress and engage in lawfare for their goals. It’s nonsense to pretend it came out of no where for no reason.