YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.
It use to be video games and movies taking the blame. Now it’s websites. When are we going to decide that people are just bat shit crazy and guns need some form of regulation?
Because every gun owner thinks they are “the good guys”
Because every gun owner thinks they are “the good guys”
Just wait till I use my gun to save a bunch of lives. Then you’ll see that I’m a hero. /s
And most of them fantasize about killing liberals and BLM protesters.
I can see the nuance in an argument that an online community, unmoderated, could be using an algorithm to group these violent people together and amplifying their views. The same can’t really be said for most other platforms. Writing threats of violence should still be taken seriously over the internet, especially if it was later acted upon. I don’t disagree with you that there’s a lot of bat shit crazy out there though.
It’s not popular nowadays to mention that people need to have self accountability, there’s always apparently a website, service, game or social media platform to “blame” for the actions of the individual
Exactly and sites that profit off of hosting extremist content that radicalises terrorists need to be held accountable for their actions.
The thing about bat shit crazy people is that they dont need guns to be violent, they will find another way.
I can’t realistically stab ten people in a crowd before I’m disarmed by the mob. And I certainly can’t do it from a hotel window.
Guns just make the whole killing thing a lot more efficient.
democratizing violence is not a bad thing if you think about it.
As disturbing as that comment is, the inverse sheds light on one of the biggest issues with attempts to regulate guns to reduce gun violence:
Legal attempts to restrict violence through restrictions of legal freedoms will not and have not democratized safety from violence, mostly because the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by people who are already in the habit and practice of disregarding laws.
Why are video games immune to neuroplasticity? Or any form of entertainment really.
Neuroplasticity is not really relevant here - it’s just the ability of the brain to form new connections. You’d need a casual effect of video games/entertainment toward radicalization inherently and science does not support that position.
Even meta studies are not showing any causal link between gaming/entertainment and aggression
Anecdotally I play a genocidal maniac in every game I can. I love playing total war and killing every single thing I come across, razing pillaging their villages and enslaving the survivors. I’ve done it since I was a young child playing RTS games like age of empires. Adding up all my video game kills would probably be literally in the billions. Can you guess how many people I’ve killed in real life?
Why is every commenter defending it so aggressive then?
I imagine it feels that way when tons of people disagree with you. But that’s also part of posting in public discourse, if people don’t like what you’re saying they will surely let you know.
deleted by creator
What do you mean, “immune to neuroplasticity”?
deleted by creator
Many Americans will sacrifice a lot for their guns. Including school children and the ability to live in a safe society.
deleted by creator
It’s hard to comprehend from the inside. This country is full of traumatizing shit that’s really hard to face.
Well, Americans with or without guns are much more violent than people in other first-world countries. Our non-gun homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rate in (for example) France or Germany.
There’s an interesting discussion of the statistics here.
So my interpretation is that gun control is likely to reduce the murder rate, the change will not be nearly as dramatic as many gun-control supporters seem to expect. Guns aren’t most of the problem.
Means≠motivation. Having the capacity to do something doesn’t drive one to do so.
I’m not deeply researched on this case but from what I know I’d imagine that poor solication combined with being accepted into a group who’d espouse those kind of views contributed to their actions. Not to say that any of those websites did anything particularly to drive their actions.
It is a quasi-religious thing. They would rather risk their kids dying than even accept the most basic regulations.
bUt iT’s mUh rIgHt tO kEeP aNd cArRy gUnS
Pity the mass shooting victims didn’t have the right to live their lives without being gunned down by a psycopath.
They do have that right actually, which is why we punish those who take those rights away. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean people can’t break the laws
Really? The pro-gun community doesn’t seem to think so. Without fail, they demand the right for people to legally own firearms despite a long history of red flags, in direct opposition to people’s right to life and liberty.
70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners, with most of the remaining being people who took a family members legally owned (and legally poorly secured) firearm.
Pro-gun groups spend millions ensuring this doesn’t change. Where is their punishment? They have record profits and convenient access to a hobby at the clear expense of people’s right to life.
And I know the bleated response; an immediate othering with “but those are law-abiding gun owners, you can’t punish them”.
But it’s bullshit. Most mass shooters fit the definition of “law abiding gun owner” right up to the minute they start firing into crowds. If a group is responsible for nearly three quarters of domestic terrorists and is unwilling or unable to lower that figure, society has a duty to put a stop to it.
It’s also disingenuous to claim responsibility for an act starts and ends with the murderer. We’re not blind, we can see the people who continue to enable gun violence.
Where do illegal firearms come from? Legal gun owners who leave handguns in their gloveboxes. Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim? Republican politicians who take millions from the gun-lobby. Who supports Republicans and the gun-lobby for exactly that reason? The pro-gun community.
And surprise surprise, it’s the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.
Yes really, I’m part of that pro gun community, I own some myself. In the US, we have certain rights that are in our constitution, like the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a trial by jury, and along with all those is the right to bear arms. It was so important to early America it’s the second amendment, right behind free speech.
Just having a gun, or any item that is also a weapon really, doesn’t oppose the right to live. Both exist, it’s illegal to kill someone with your fists, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it doesn’t matter what tool is used.
Most mass shooters fit the definition of “law abiding gun owner” right up to the minute they start firing into crowds.
So they aren’t law abiding? Glad we can agree on that. Yes it’s legal to carry a gun around as long as you don’t go shooting random people with it, what’s the point? I carry a pocket knife everywhere I go, that’s also legal also as long as I don’t go stabbing people.
Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim
So about red flag laws. Should red flags prevent the ability to practice a right? I’m not mentioning any specific right because constitutionally they all have the same protections. If it’s illegal to use two flags to prevent free speech, it’s illegal to use it for any other right, that’s how rights work.
The people wanting to single out one right are destroying the integrity of the most important document in US history. There are correct ways to do it, but they aren’t being done, instead they are trying to do things unconstitutionally. Removing a right is hard, and requires agreement, and there isn’t enough support to do it so the left resorts to unconstitutional methods and the right fights to stop it.
And surprise surprise, it’s the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.
I’m also against the recent movements to remove stuff like the right to abortion, but I was honestly shocked to see how weak the argument that made abortion a “right” was. Did you know how the original Roe V Wade decision was made?
It starts with the 14th amendment, known as the amendment that gave citizenship to anyone born in the USA, and providing them equal protection under the law. There is one line in the 14th amendment that reads “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. The supreme court decided that one little phrase gives us the implied right of privacy. From that right to privacy, they determined that means we also have the right to abortion, but only some abortion, no late term abortion.
So not surprising it was a very controversial decision that many saw as the right result in the wrong way. I’m honestly surprised it lasted 50 years.
You can’t sue “the availability of guns”, but you can sue YouTube, Reddit, the manufacturer, and whoever else is involved and at least try to get some money out of them.
Man, if the only thing that’s preventing a country’s populace from murdering each other is restricted access to weapons, then that country is a failed society.
Man, if your country has you living in such fear that you feel the need to be armed at all times, then that country is a failed society.
There will always be murders. Humans are irrational creatures. Banning firearms makes murder attempts less likely to succeed, and mass murders significantly harder to plan, execute, and achieve actual mortality with.
Yeah, let’s not regulate guns at all, that’s a swell idea. Really worked out well so far.
Let’s make them illegal, like drugs, because that works great.
The demand for guns in the US is high; if you don’t think this would become a lucrative black market you’re foolish.
The solution is more involved than just “regulate X”. Something is deeply fucked that isn’t going to be simply solved with a law, and could make things worse despite great intentions, just like prohibition did.
If the demand isn’t addressed, the problem will still exist. Same as prostitution and drugs.
It’s almost like an in-between option for both drugs and guns needs to be considered.
I’d still contend the issue is demand, and that is the root issue. Other solutions are treating the symptom, not the cause.
The demand isn’t so much the problem in an in between option, fair regulation and access requirements along with tracking (in the case of guns moreso) would help tremendously.
Definitely though the underlying cause of the desire/need is a separate discussion. Recreational drugs/guns aren’t a complete negative imo, some people just like to experience a different mindset/state or shoot guns, but those that are mentally ill should be able to get help instead.
I don’t disagree necessarily, I just see it this way.
There’s a drug problem: why are people turning to drugs for escapism? It indicates an underlying issue with society and/or our relationship with drugs.
Along the same lines, why are we so hostile towards one another? Reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of people shot, but it wouldn’t address the hostility.
It’s just more complicated than “regulate X” no matter how good or common sense those regulations are.
My concern is that people only pursue the regulations, don’t address the social issue (much harder), and we end up with what prohibition created - a more robust black market.
Let’s make them illegal, like drugs, because that works great.
So what’s the black market for hand grenades and land mines like?
Practically non-existent because it turns out controlling weapon manufacturing is much easier than controlling drug manufacturing and you can properly scrutinise people’s access to them without a death cult getting outraged.
Yes much better to arm that populace and have it be a double failure. Your failed society comparison would be an improvement for the US.
deleted by creator
That’s kinda a given, but way harder to fix than introducing weapons control.
Idk about this suit but let’s not forget how Facebook did actually in fact get a fascist elected president.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-not-just-fake-news/
He was treated like a joke candidate by the Democrats at the time. Facebook didn’t get him elected, Hillary ran a weak campaign and didn’t take the threat seriously. He used FB for fundraising and she could’ve done the same thing if she wanted to.
Fantastic. I’ve been waiting to see these cases.
Start with a normal person, get them all jacked up on far right propaganda, then they go kill someone. If the website knows people are being radicalized into violent ideologies and does nothing to stop it, that’s a viable claim for wrongful death. It’s about foreseeability and causation, not about who did the shooting. Really a lot of people coming in on this thread who obviously have no legal experience.
I just don’t understand how hosting a platform to allow people to talk would make you liable since you’re not the one responsible for the speech itself.
Is that really all they do though? That’s what theyve convinced us that they do, but everyone on these platforms knows how crucial it is to tweak your content to please the algorithm. They also do everything they can to become monopolies, without which it wouldn’t even be possible to start on DIY videos and end on white supremacy or whatever.
I wrote a longer version of this argument here, if you’re curious.
This is a good read, I highly suggest people click the link. Although it is short enough that I think you could have just posted it into your comment.
Yes, but then I couldn’t harvest all your sweet data.
Kidding! It’s a static site on my personal server that doesn’t load anything but the content itself. It’s mostly just a PITA to reformat it all mobile.
Which article is it? The link takes me to the website main page.
Huh really? Do you have JS turned off or anything? Here’s the full link: https://theluddite.org/#!post/section-230
I agree to a point, but think that depending on how things are structured on the platform side they can have some responsibility.
Think of facebook. They have algorithms which make sure you see what they think you want to see. It doesn’t matter if that content is hateful and dangerous, they will push more of that onto a damaged person and stoke the fires simply because they think it will make them more advertisement revenue.
They should be screening that content and making it less likely for anyone to see it, let alone damaged people. And I guarantee you they know which of their users are damaged people just from comment and search histories.
I’m not sure if reddit works this way, due to the upvotes and downvote systems, it may be moreso the users which decide the content you see, but reddit has communities which they can keep a closer eye on to prevent hateful and dangerous content from being shared.
Because you are responsible for hiring psychologists to tailor a platform to boost negative engagement, and now there will be a court case to determine culpability.
Reddit is going to have to make the argument that it just boosts “what people like” and it just so happens people like negative engagement.
And I mean it’s been known for decades that people like bad news more than good news when it comes to attention and engagement.
They probably will take that argument but that doesn’t instantly dissolve them of legal culpability.
Tell that to the admins of lemmy.world defederating from communities because they may be held liable for what shows up on their website.
You mean the cowards who are already operating in a safe-habor provision of the DMCA?
Sure? I mean I think so. 🤔
We should get the thought police in on this also, stop it before it has a chance to spread. For real though, people need to take accountability for their own actions and stop trying to deflect it onto others.
a viable claim for wrongful death
Something tells me you’re not a lawyer.
Really a lot of people coming in on this thread who obviously have no legal experience.
Like you
The catch is whether the site knows that specific individual is being radicalized. If admins aren’t punishing the account regularly I wonder how difficult it will be to prove reddit/YT specifically pushed this guy.
YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack. Similarly, the lawsuits claim Reddit promoted extreme content and offered a specialized forum relating to tactical gear.
Yeah this is going nowhere.
The lawsuit claims Mean LLC manufactured an easily removable gun lock, offering a way to circumvent New York laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
This seems like the only part of the suits that might have traction. All the other bits seem easy to dismiss. That’s not a statement on whether others share responsibility, only on what seems legally actionable in the US.
Here’s an install video of what I assume was the product in question based on the named LLC. https://youtu.be/EjJdMfuH9q4
Shy of completely destroying the the lock and catch system by drilling the mechanism I don’t see an effective way of removing it.
I don’t think it’d meet the court’s standards for easily removable given it’d require power tools and would permanently alter the device in an unfamiliar reversible way.
They’re just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks hoping to get some money. Suing google for delivering search results? It shows how ridiculous blaming tools is. The only person liable here is the shooter.
Well, maybe. I want to be up-front that I haven’t read the actual lawsuit, but it seems from the article that the claim is that youtube and reddit both have an algorithm that helped radicalize him:
YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack. Similarly, the lawsuits claim Reddit promoted extreme content and offered a specialized forum relating to tactical gear.
I’d say that case is worth pursuing. It’s long been known that social media companies tune their algorithms to increase engagement, and that pissed off people are more likely to engage. This results in algorithms that output content that makes people angry, by design, and that’s a choice these companies make, not “delivering search results”.
The only person liable here is the shooter.
On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I’d be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people’s minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they’d face charges.
The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
Google’s “common carrier” type of defence takes you only so far, as it’s not a purely neutral party in terms, as it “recommends”, not merely “delivers results”, as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
Radicalizing someone to do this isn’t a crime. Freedom of speech isn’t absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.
Don’t apply UK’s lack of freedom of speech in American courts.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
No. It’s actually more akin to someone designing a supermarket that made it near impossible for a fat person to find healthy food and heavily discounted fatty foods and someone died from being overweight.
The article doesn’t really expand on the Reddit point: apart from the weapon trading forum, it’s about the shooter being a participant in PoliticalCompassMemes which is a right wing subreddit. After the shooting the Reddit admins made a weak threat towards the mods of PCM, prompting the mods to sticky a “stop being so racist or we’ll get deleted” post with loads of examples of the type of racist dog whistles the users needed to stop using in the post itself.
I don’t imagine they’ll have much success against Reddit in this lawsuit, but Reddit is aware of PCM and its role and it continues to thrive to this day.
Who would be the right one to sue? Reddit is hosting it, but they are using admins to keep discussion civil and legal; the admins of PCM are most likely not employed by Reddit, but are they responsible for users egging each other on? At what point is a mod responsible for users using “free speech” to instigate a crime? They should have picked a few posts and users and held them accountable instead of going for the platform. People will keep radicalizing themselves in social media bubbles, in particular when those bubbles are not visible to the public. Muting discussion on a platform will just make them go elsewhere or create their own. The better approach would be to expose them to different views and critique of what they are saying.
There’s admins and there’s moderators (mods). Please clarify which you mean.
Admins are Reddit employees and are supposed to enforce site-wide rules outlined in their policy and terms of use.
Moderators are unpaid volunteers whose identity is typically unknown to Reddit who are in charge of running a sub. Moderators can make up additional rules and enforce them.
In the USA it’s not a crime to be racist, promote a religion teaching that God wants you to be racist, say most racist things in public, or even join the American Nazi Party. The line is set at threatening, inciting, or provoking violence, and judges don’t accept online arguments that saying racist garbage is inherently threatening.
Ahh one of those “We’re mad and we don’t have anyone to be angry with.” style lawsuits. Pretty much the Hail Mary from a lawyer who is getting their name in the paper but knows it won’t go anywhere.
“Easy to remove gun lock” that has been tried multiple times and usually fails. “Gun lock” doesn’t seem to be related to assault weapons and large capacity magazine but who knows what they mean, even when a gun is “Easily modifiable” it’s usually not treated as illegal, because someone has to actually make those modifications. The same will probably be the case for the kevlar. (at the time of the shooting it was legal).
Youtube contributing to radicalization is a laugh, it’s an attempt to get their name in the papers and will be dismissed easily. They’d have better chance to name the channels that radicalized him, but first amendment rights would be near absolute here. Besides which “Radicalization” isn’t the same as a conspiracy or orders. It’s the difference between someone riling up the crowd until they’re in a fervor which ends up in a riot, and someone specifically telling people how to riot and who to target. (Even if can be tried as crimes, one is a conspiracy, one is not, and even that “radicalization” would be neither.) Even “I wish someone would go shoot up …” would be hyperbole, and thrown out as well. It’s pretty hard to break the first amendment protections in America (And that’s a good thing, if you think it’s not imagine if the other party is in power and wants to squash your speech… yeah let’s keep that amendment in place).
The same will be the case against Facebook for all the same reasons.
If you think Google should be responsible, then you think the park that someone is radicalized in should be responsible for what’s said in it, or the email provider is responsible for every single piece of mail that is sent on it, even though it might not have access to see that mail… it’s a silly idea even assuming they could even do that. Maybe they’re hoping to scare Google to change it’s algorithm, but I doubt that will happen either.
The case against the parents is another one that people try and again… unless there’s more than their saying, you still can’t sue someone for being a bad parent. Hell there’s a better case against the parents of Ethan Crumbley, and even that cases is still pretty shaky, and involved the parents actively ignoring every warning sign, and buying the kid the gun. This there’s nothing that seems to be pinnable on the parents.
You know it sucks and I know there’s a lot of hurt people but lawsuits like this ultimately fail because it’s like rolling the dice, but history pretty much shows this is hoping for a one in a million chance that they get lucky, and they won’t, because it’s one in a million, and then they’d have to hope it’s not overturned even if they do win.
You don’t know what you’re talking about and it’s obvious.
You’re not a lawyer, right?
Lawyer? no. They did eat a piece of paper with a legal letterhead on it once!
Fuck reddit but thats bs.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
YouTube, Reddit and a body armor manufacturer were among the businesses that helped enable the gunman who killed 10 Black people in a racist attack at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, according to a pair of lawsuits announced Wednesday.
The complementary lawsuits filed by Everytown Law in state court in Buffalo claim that the massacre at Tops supermarket in May 2022 was made possible by a host of companies and individuals, from tech giants to a local gun shop to the gunman’s parents.
The lawsuit claims Mean LLC manufactured an easily removable gun lock, offering a way to circumvent New York laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack.
“We aim to change the corporate and individual calculus so that every company and every parent recognizes they have a role to play in preventing future gun violence,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law.
Last month, victims’ relatives filed a lawsuit claiming tech and social media giants such as Facebook, Amazon and Google bear responsibility for radicalizing Gendron.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The village (community/lack of community) makes the villains. Everyone’s a problem.
That. Or, just spitballing here, it’s the guns.
Not saying something shouldn’t be done or not done with the gun situation. But I believe it’s the community driving these kids to want a gun to kill people. Gun laws are just one part of many problems that are a part of our broken community. I guess the guns are a result of a broken community is part of what I mean. Banning guns alone in my eyes is an extremely over simplified bandaid fix. Tbh these days I see the gun debate as crooked politics just trying to get votes… They want that free publicity.
I’m not even sure what you mean when you say community, or who’s part of it.
No problem. It’s hard to talk about this stuff with out generalizing. I’m at work I can’t really get into it.
This lawsuit is not going anywhere because of Section 230.
interesting… whether the sites will be found liable…. it’s pretty unlikely, but it sure does shine a spotlight on how each are magnets for alt-right crazies. I wonder if that will have any effect on their moderation?
I doubt it.
They’re also “magnets” for progressive, liberal, conservative and all other crazies and normal people. That’s mostly because everyone uses them. It’s the most popular video sharing site and (one of?) the most popular social media site.
yeah, but progressives and liberals and all other “crazies and normal people” aren’t the ones committing mass shootings all the time.
Right, but since YouTube and Facebook are two of the most popular sites in the world, they aren’t really just magnets for alt-right crazies, since they appeal to almost everybody.
right, but “everybody” aren’t the ones committing mass shootings all the time. that’s an alt-right crazies problem.
Ok so isn’t the issue at hand whether the sites are to blame?
Ok so isn’t the issue at hand whether the sites are to blame?
let’s break this down so I can answer you in what I think is an honest way:
- Are the sites legally responsible for the content they host, generally speaking and/or in this contact of radicalization and such subsequent results as these?
and
- Do these sites bear any social/moral responsibility to moderate their more extreme content in good faith to try to prevent this sort of result?
and
- Is there an overlap of 1 and 2?
1 - this is for a court to decide. I’m not familiar enough with the very specifics of case law or with the suits being brought to know exactly what is being alleged, etc. I can’t opine on this other that to say that, from what I do know, it’s unlikely that a court would hold these sites legally responsible.
2 - I fully believe that, yes, sites like these, massive, general-use public sites have a social and moral responsibility to keep their platforms safe. How and what that means is a matter for much debate, and I’m sure people here will do just that.
3 - is there overlap? again, legally, I’m not sure, but there might be, and in the near future, there might be much more. also, should there be more? another subject for debate.
Ok so isn’t the issue at hand whether the sites are to blame?
let’s break this down so I can answer you in what I think is an honest way:
- Are the sites legally responsible for the content they host, generally speaking and/or in this contact of radicalization and such subsequent results as these?
and
- Do these sites bear any social/moral responsibility to moderate their more extreme content in good faith to try to prevent this sort of result?
and
- Is there an overlap of 1 and 2?
1 is for a court to decide
Ok so isn’t the issue at hand whether the sites are to blame?
let’s break this down so I can answer you in what I think is an honest way:
- Are the sites legally responsible for the content they host, generally speaking and/or in this contact of radicalization and such subsequent results as these?
and
- Do these sites bear any social/moral responsibility to moderate their more extreme content in good faith to try to prevent this sort of result?
and
- Is there an overlap of 1 and 2?
I didn’t say they were. Facebook and YouTube didn’t commit the shootings, and there isn’t anything particularly special about them that would disproportionately attract the alt-right crazies. They’re not hate sites.
here isn’t anything particularly special about them that would disproportionately attract the alt-right crazies
lmao… that’s a good one
YouTube’s algorithm seems to be funneling people to alt-right videos
Feeding Hate With Video: A Former Alt-Right YouTuber Explains His Methods
‘Carol’s Journey’: What Facebook knew about how it radicalized users
‘It let white supremacists organize’: the toxic legacy of Facebook’s Groups
this is just scratching the surface…
a great video essay the subject:
The Trump supporters like to bitch that Facebook has been censoring their opinions, especially during 2020 and 2021. They felt the same way about Twitter until Elon turned it into a hell hole.
They aren’t being sued for being “magnets.”
💀
deleted by creator
The gun store owner couldn’t have known that any gun he’d sell would be used within moments, to take innocent lives.
Hundreds, thousands of deaths due to gun violence committed right after the gun was bought would disagree with you
Most gun violence involves weapons that are less than 6 months old.
