• Hegar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Holding companies responsible for how their products are used is the closest thing we have to fixing the issue.

    Being able to sue both the makers and marketers of guns designed for massacres creates pressure for a solution to be found because now someone who matters is losing money.

    • dellish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I would argue the issue isn’t the existence or marketing of a product, rather how easy it is to procure, which I believe OP is saying. You can argue about how attractive the product is to people, or lack of mental health services until the end of time, but the real and very obvious problem (at least to those outside the US) is just how easy it is for most people to get a weapon capable of killing many with little to no valid reason, checks or training. From the outside this is seriously bonkers.

      • Hegar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        how easy it is to procure

        For sure. I grew up in australia. If I could snap my fingers and ban all guns I would in a heartbeat. But I live here and I know that’s not possible.

        The most feasible way to reduce the ease of getting guns is to hit the pocketbook of those who profit from how easy guns are to get. Our country is too corrupt for legislation to work. We have to sue companies and hope we like the changes they suggest.