Gun manufacturers livid after California governor signs 'bounty' bill curbing illegal firearms' sale

In almost any mass shooting involving an assault-style weapon in this country, there are varying levels of moral culpability. The first and most obvious is the culpability of the shooter himself (they are almost always men), who consciously chooses to make use of that weapon for its intended purpose by killing one, two, or sometimes scores of human beings. His culpability is not only moral, but legal, and as a result, he is the one who faces consequences for his actions.

The second, more indirect culpability is shared by the manufacturer and seller of the weapon itself. These parties, of course, argue that they are not culpable at all—that they, in fact, are simply taking advantage of the laws as they are written—and bear no responsibility when their products are used as intended (to kill people). Because, in most cases, they cannot legally be held liable, they indignantly insist that they bear no moral culpability for such shootings.

The third morally culpable party is the legal structure or system that permits those sellers and manufacturers to sell their lethal products more or less with impunity, i.e., without fear of reprisal, legal restrictions, or consequences. At the pinnacle of that legal framework sits the conservative majority currently dominating the United States Supreme Court. They, in turn, wash their hands of any culpability whatsoever, pointing to the Constitution, which they have deliberately interpreted as permitting the manufacture and sale of these weapons in the first place: an artful dodge that also eliminates any responsibility (at least in a legal sense) for the manufacturers and sellers of those same weapons. The fact that individuals on the court owe their positions in large part to the lobby that represents such sellers and manufacturers is seen as beside the point.