I was briefly concerned before dismissing this all as absurd. Surely we aren't more likely to hold tech companies responsible for the actions of their users than we are to hold gun manufacturers responsible for theirs.
It is actually pretty absurd. If you think guns shouldn't be in the hands of most people and guns lead to bad things happening its still ridiculous to go after people for manufacturing legal products just because most of the US wont let you ban them. The desired end astoundingly unlikely and doesn't justify the nonsensical means.
Worse the lawyers involved in such things no that all it serves to do is to suck up money from suckers to enrich the lawyers.
Interesting analogy but there is a difference though. Government can somewhat regulate gun sales (proof of identity, no hospitalization due to mental illness, etc). If you apply that to tech companies then we are about to see some regulation in who can and who can't use those services.
Why do you say that? The NRA is one of the single most powerful special interest groups in the USA. The tech industry doesn't even come close to the NRA's lobbying results.
He wrote "results", so I think he targeted the fact that weapons are still essentially freely available in the USA (at least it looks that way from over here in Europe). This can be seen as really effective lobbying given how many times it has been argued that weapons shouldn't be so easily available anymore without any changes to existing laws.
> weapons are still essentially freely available in the USA (at least it looks that way from over here in Europe)
They're really not. Automatic weapons made after 1986 are banned; automatic weapons made before that date are extremely expensive and require permission of local law enforcement and revocation of one's Fourth Amendment rights. Firearms may no longer be sold by mail, as they were for most of our nation's history. Firearms may not be sold by private parties across state lines. All commercial sales require a background check. In many states it's illegal to sell a firearm privately; in some states you can't even legally give a weapon to a family member as a gift. Many states and some localities impose unreasonable restrictions on magazine size and cosmetic features. Some states impose registration requirements, which means that law enforcement has the ability to confiscate all legal weapons at will.
> This can be seen as really effective lobbying given how many times it has been argued that weapons shouldn't be so easily available anymore without any changes to existing laws.
I think the conditions above indicate how ineffective the pro-gun lobby has been, given that almost none of it is constitutional.
(although it's worth noting that for most of its history the NRA was a pro-gun-control organisation)
