▲ 257 ▼ A Tesla ran a stop sign and killed a man, record confirms Full Self-Driving/Autopilot was on (electrek.co) submitted 1 month ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/boycottus@lemmy.ca 56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago (14 children) Sure, and gun companies are responsible for gun deaths. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago Gun companies sell weapons. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill. You hold a gun company responsible because their weapon has killed. That only means they did their job correctly. A car company makes cars. Cars' main purpose is to transport its owner. You can hold a car company responsible for a killing. That's in a sensible country though. In the US murder is legal as long as you do it with a car. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (11 children) False analogy. If there was a gun on the market that sometimes malfunctioned and discharged without anyone touching it we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible. We would demand a recall or outright ban them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) We definitely would hold the owner responsible. Why the fuck have they left a loaded gun unattended? Sure do a recall as well but the owner of the stall is defintely responsible for ensuring the guns on display are not a danger. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Who said it was unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) You did. discharged without anyone touching it That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules. Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner. The same is true for the driver of the tesla. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible. Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren't expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we're talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun. The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn't have brought it up because guns aren't cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Both are capable of killing people if used improperly. If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless. You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety. Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent [–] supersquirrel@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) The Sig Sauer P320 entered the chat... ###BANG### Oh no everyone I am SO SO sorry I messed up again didn't I - SigP320 permalink fedilink source parent [–] KeithD@lemmy.nz 1 point 1 month ago we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible Depends on the jurisdiction. If there are local laws against leaving a weapon loaded, we might. permalink fedilink source parent [–] axus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields federally licensed firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability lawsuits when crimes are committed by third parties using their lawfully sold products. Tesla hasn't bought a law like that yet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago Gun companies sell weapons. The main purpose of a weapon is to kill. You hold a gun company responsible because their weapon has killed. That only means they did their job correctly. A car company makes cars. Cars' main purpose is to transport its owner. You can hold a car company responsible for a killing. That's in a sensible country though. In the US murder is legal as long as you do it with a car. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (11 children) False analogy. If there was a gun on the market that sometimes malfunctioned and discharged without anyone touching it we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible. We would demand a recall or outright ban them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) We definitely would hold the owner responsible. Why the fuck have they left a loaded gun unattended? Sure do a recall as well but the owner of the stall is defintely responsible for ensuring the guns on display are not a danger. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Who said it was unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) You did. discharged without anyone touching it That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules. Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner. The same is true for the driver of the tesla. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible. Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren't expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we're talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun. The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn't have brought it up because guns aren't cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Both are capable of killing people if used improperly. If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless. You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety. Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent [–] supersquirrel@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) The Sig Sauer P320 entered the chat... ###BANG### Oh no everyone I am SO SO sorry I messed up again didn't I - SigP320 permalink fedilink source parent [–] KeithD@lemmy.nz 1 point 1 month ago we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible Depends on the jurisdiction. If there are local laws against leaving a weapon loaded, we might. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) We definitely would hold the owner responsible. Why the fuck have they left a loaded gun unattended? Sure do a recall as well but the owner of the stall is defintely responsible for ensuring the guns on display are not a danger. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Who said it was unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) You did. discharged without anyone touching it That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules. Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner. The same is true for the driver of the tesla. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible. Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren't expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we're talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun. The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn't have brought it up because guns aren't cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Both are capable of killing people if used improperly. If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless. You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety. Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) Who said it was unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) You did. discharged without anyone touching it That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules. Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner. The same is true for the driver of the tesla. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible. Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren't expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we're talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun. The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn't have brought it up because guns aren't cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Both are capable of killing people if used improperly. If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless. You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety. Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (6 children) You did. discharged without anyone touching it That would mean a loaded gun was left unattended. The owner/operator would be held liable. They have ignored core gun safety rules. Yes the manufacturer could be held liable as well but the primary respinsiblility lies with the owner. The same is true for the driver of the tesla. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible. Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren't expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we're talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun. The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn't have brought it up because guns aren't cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Both are capable of killing people if used improperly. If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless. You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety. Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) So a holstered or shouldered weapon without a finger on the trigger and the safety active is unattended? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible. Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Shouldered you have full control of the gun. If it was to go off while pointed at someone, even with the saftey on, you would be responsible. Holstered, bit of both, typically it would be pointed at the ground which minimises danger but of it goes off and hits your foot it's still your fault for choosing to carry a loaded gun. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) Not touching is not unattended, where do you jump to that? The analogy presented could literally have you be next to it, have it secured, and then it going off alone through some defect you weren't expecting. Sounds far fetched unless we're talking about some kind of weapon system and not just a handgun. The real takeaway here is this is a bad example and you shouldn't have brought it up because guns aren't cars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Both are capable of killing people if used improperly. If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless. You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety. Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Both are capable of killing people if used improperly. If the gun was to go off and kill someone, you would be held responsible. One of the most basic rules of gun safety is don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. If you lie a loaded gun on a table and it discharges and hits someone it's your fault for being so careless. You must always expect a gun to go off if it's loaded. I cannot stress this enough. This is basic gun safety. Now for cars, yes tesla could be done for false advertising and reckless endangerment. But the driver still retains fault. They could not control the vehicle properly and killed someone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) You've got blinders on at this point lol. Peace. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 1 month ago Maybe we both do ;) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] supersquirrel@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) The Sig Sauer P320 entered the chat... ###BANG### Oh no everyone I am SO SO sorry I messed up again didn't I - SigP320 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KeithD@lemmy.nz 1 point 1 month ago we wouldnt hold the person who loaded it responsible Depends on the jurisdiction. If there are local laws against leaving a weapon loaded, we might. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] axus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields federally licensed firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from civil liability lawsuits when crimes are committed by third parties using their lawfully sold products. Tesla hasn't bought a law like that yet. permalink fedilink source parent