Since young persons don't make GUNS why won't adults take responsibility for corporation created guns?

Question

Part 2: Should corporations be held accountable for the numerous guns in the hands of teens?

Part 3: Should the stock exchanges be held accountable for promoting the stocks of firms that create guns?

Answer 1

while good points, that is a slippery slope, cars also kill,,, food can kill in the long run, alcohol causes deaths,, baseball bats can be used to kill, so can tire irons, etc etc,,, so if you apply that to gun corporations, you would have to apply it to all,,, but i do agree with you, that many corporations do not even consider where their products end up,,,,,

Answer 2

Part 4: Am I responsible for asking this stupid, poorly thought-out question, or is it an adult's responsibility. Sound familiar? That's what your saying ... I'm not able to control myself, I'm breaking the law using a gun in a crime, and it's not really my fault ... NICE!

Yo, jerk boy! Learn grammar and learn about personal responsibility! The companies that manufacture guns aren't the problem ... it's the uncontrolled criminal idiots running around with stolen and unregistered (also illegal) guns that think they can get what they want, usually thru theft, by brandishing their weapons. The stock exchange doesn't make the gun manufacturers wealthy, it's the people who buy the product ... profits come from sales!

The bigger problem here is the lack of enforcement of current gun laws. The Constitution of the United States protects the right to bear arms, that's possess a gun, for you. Criminals who commit crimes with guns often get plea-bargained right back onto the streets by their loop-hole finding, liberal, ACLU supporting lawyers. If all the guns out there were legally registered, and there were some real teeth in the punishment applied by the courts, you can bet gun-related crime would diminish. You should educate yourself regarding the real source of the problem with guns as related to crime. Then, if you're really bothered, do something to change things!

Answer 3

Parents should be responsible for teenagers who use guns. Guns are not inherently bad no more than a knife, a rock or a cheesburger is. The use you put it to is what is bad and since parents are legally and morally responsible for the behavoir of their children, the parents are required by law and ethics to be certain their children are either responsible or do not have ANY weapons. The same applies to alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

Why is it that for some people the answer to every issue is to make more laws? The laws in existence aren't obeyed or enforced and when they are enforced the same yoyos that insisted on all these laws whine that they are unfair. Our failure to enforce laws leads to contempt for all laws. Our failure to discipline our children leads to unmanagable teenagers.

The liberals want a law for everything then feel sorry for the person who breaks the laws and refuse to enforce them with realistic penalties. The conservatives want realistic laws and firmly enforced penalties for breaking those laws. In the long run, the liberalization of this country is creating a situation where teenagers carry guns and aren't held accountable for their actions and where any person can commit most crimes with impunity. Do you really want crime free streets or not? If you do, work for the enforcement of laws rather than additional laws that will be ignored.

Answer 4

Sure....
Just as soon as:

1) Automakers are held accountable for motor vehicle deaths
2) Breweries and distilleries are held accountable for alcohol-related deaths.
3) Swimming pool contractors are held accountable for drowning deaths
3) Knife, baseball bat, machete, and screwdriver manufacturers are held accountable for an individual choosing one of these tools to carry out murder.....

How can you justify making someone ELSE accountable for the murderous choices of the criminal ?

For that matter.... if an innocent citizen's life could have been saved by their legal possesion and use of a firearm when they were violently attacked, but were unable to possess said firearm because you introduced legislation denying them legal possession, should *you* be held accountable for that that death ?

Answer 5

Corporations have no control over what people do with their products. Firearms have many non-lethal uses such as competition shooting, recreational target shooting, hobby shooting, gun collecting etc. Guns are also invaluable for self preservation and home protection. Firearm Manufacturers are no more responsible for crime than pencil manufacturers are responsible for me failing an exam. People make the decisions, and people are to be held responsible.

Answer 6

If the corps and stock markets are held accountable for this, then Liberals/Democrats should also be held responsible for stupidity.

Answer 7

How about we keep the status quo. Hold the idiots who use the guns accountable.

Answer 8

No, no and no.

The Anti-gun Male

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable -- so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.

People are suspicious of what they do not know -- and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife -- there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life -- if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.