Politics Supreme Court will allow Sandy Hook families to move forward in suit against gunmaker Remington

[SlyPokerDog]

• The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will not hear a closely watched case against gunmaker Remington.
• The company had warned that such a result could potentially increase the liability of firearm manufacturers to suits brought by victims of gun crimes.
• The court’s action will allow the family members of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre to move forward with their lawsuit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/supreme-court-sandy-hook-remington-guns.html

 

[Natebishop3]

This is bullshit.

 

[calvin natt]

awesome

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

This is bullshit.

awesome

 

[Hobbesarable]

This will be an interesting case to watch.

 

[Chris Craig]

Good for them

 

[Natebishop3]

awesome

So I'm curious. Do you think someone should be able to file a lawsuit against a motorcycle company or a car company for making a car that can go 160+ mph even though there isn't a road in America that you can legally go 160+ mph? And when someone crashes and dies, or kills someone else, is the car/motorcycle company liable?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So, the whole case hinges on whether or not Remington marketed their guns as human-killers? Does anyone have any idea what marketing materials the plaintiffs are pointing to?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So, the whole case hinges on whether or not Remington marketed their guns as human-killers? Does anyone have any idea what marketing materials the plaintiffs are pointing to?

This article explains it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/bushmaster-sandy-hook-liability/463245/

Those tactics, never tested before under PLCAA, dominate the allegations spelled out in the plaintiffs’ complaint. It quotes several advertisements from a catalog aimed at civilian gun buyers that is adorned with action photos of camouflage-clad soldiers and police in body armor. One reads, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” Other images tout the rifle’s “military-proven performance” and call it “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

With that type of marketing, the Sandy Hook families claim, “The Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles.” The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement—where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes—in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines.​

 

[calvin natt]

So I'm curious. Do you think someone should be able to file a lawsuit against a motorcycle company or a car company for making a car that can go 160+ mph even though there isn't a road in America that you can legally go 160+ mph? And when someone crashes and dies, or kills someone else, is the car/motorcycle company liable?

To be honest, I really don’t give a fuck. Anything that in any way hurts anything or anyone with regards to guns I’m all for. I’m fucking tired of it. Like I give a shit about a gun maker?

 

[Natebishop3]

This article explains it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/bushmaster-sandy-hook-liability/463245/

Those tactics, never tested before under PLCAA, dominate the allegations spelled out in the plaintiffs’ complaint. It quotes several advertisements from a catalog aimed at civilian gun buyers that is adorned with action photos of camouflage-clad soldiers and police in body armor. One reads, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.” Other images tout the rifle’s “military-proven performance” and call it “the ultimate combat weapons system.”

With that type of marketing, the Sandy Hook families claim, “The Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles.” The complaint alleges that while the weapon is suitable for the military and for law enforcement—where it’s used for combat and limited police purposes—in civilian hands, the high-caliber, rapid-fire rifles are essentially killing machines.​

But all guns are killing.... machines.

 

[Natebishop3]

To be honest, I really don’t give a fuck. Anything that in any way hurts anything or anyone with regards to guns I’m all for. I’m fucking tired of it. Like I give a shit about a gun maker?

Do you see what's happening in Hong Kong? Chile? Venezuela? Do you know why those people are being brutally suppressed? Because they have no means to defend themselves.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

But all guns are killing.... machines.

So are all cars but they're not being marketed as that and this is what the lawsuit is about.

 

[Natebishop3]

So are all cars but they're not being marketed as that and this is what the lawsuit is about.

But cars aren't designed to kill things. Guns are. But it's just funny to me that they think that this is the reason for the shooting and not like..... mental illness or other actual issues that can cause people to lash out.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

But all guns are killing.... machines.

"The pedestrian clearing abilities of our bumpers makes this car the fastest way to travel through today's challenging traffic conditions."

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But all guns are killing.... machines.

So are all cars but they're not being marketed as that and this is what the lawsuit is about.

It's finer than that though; it seems like their contention is "it's OK to market guns as wild-animal killers or home-invader killers, but if you market them to civilians as offensive weapons--using the military as the basis for your marketing--then you're inviting purchasers to use them in that manner."

 

[barfo]

But all guns are killing.... machines.

Indeed, good point! Maybe we shouldn't have so many killing machines. There aren't so many people who need killing.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

It's finer than that though; it seems like their contention is "it's OK to market guns as wild-animal killers or home-invader killers, but if you market them to civilians as offensive weapons--using the military as the basis for your marketing--then you're inviting purchasers to use them in that manner."

Yeah but.... it sounds like the marketing that they're talking about WAS marketed to the military or law enforcement. There are trade magazines and conventions for industry professionals. Are they saying that these companies should somehow prevent their marketing that isn't even targeted at people like Lanza from falling into public hands?

Their contention is very obviously that the AR-15 shouldn't be available for public purchase, and the ultimate goal of this is to take down the gun industry. If one suit goes through, many can follow in its place. It's an end-run to kill the gun industry.

Also I will add that no marketing made even a tiny bit of difference. Most people Lanza's age have played video games where the AR-15/M4 variant is a popular weapon. Pretty much any game that has NATO forces in it will have some form of AR-15/M4. That's all the advertising that anyone needs. So should we do away with all military or law enforcement video games as well?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yeah but.... it sounds like the marketing that they're talking about WAS marketed to the military or law enforcement. There are trade magazines and conventions for industry professionals. Are they saying that these companies should somehow prevent their marketing that isn't even targeted at people like Lanza from falling into public hands?

I don't know that's the case. The article Sly quoted claims the materials in question were in a catalog targeted toward civilians. Not knowing the media in which they were located, I can't say with any degree of certainty if your contention is correct or if theirs is.

 

[riverman]

Well in my lifetime cigarettes have killed more people in America than almost anything and I don't think mental illness is to blame as much as advertising and availability.....don't see any problem addressing weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a few seconds as a "red flag" in the gun world. And nobody is going to be defending themselves against the govt with their AR15....that's video gamer crap purely..giving Hong Kong residents AR 15s would not save them from govt control...that's sensationalized bs...China has nukes...they could level the fucking island if they wanted to.

 

[barfo]

Do you see what's happening in Hong Kong? Chile? Venezuela? Do you know why those people are being brutally suppressed? Because they have no means to defend themselves.

I don't think that's the reason. In fact, if the gun fairy put a gun under the pillow of every citizen in those countries, I doubt it would change the government. Might increase the murder and accidental death rate, though.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think mental illness is to blame as much as advertising and availability....

Or.... like....... maybe addiction?

 

[riverman]

Or.... like....... maybe addiction?

yeah...like video game addiction...Assasin Creed or World of Warcraft?

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think that's the reason. In fact, if the gun fairy put a gun under the pillow of every citizen in those countries, I doubt it would change the government. Might increase the murder and accidental death rate, though.

barfo

I disagree. I heavily armed public of millions of people is a hell of deterrent from government control. Why do you think the founders put in the second amendment in the first place?

 

[Natebishop3]

yeah...like video game addiction...Assasin Creed or World of Warcraft?

Are you really saying that addiction isn't the main catalyst in smoking deaths?

 

[riverman]

I disagree. I heavily armed public of millions of people is a hell of deterrent from government control. Why do you think the founders put in the second amendment in the first place?

If you pay taxes...drive the speed limit and follow the laws you are succumbing to govt controls.....sometimes they are a really good thing...keep people from all kinds of twisted behavior

 

[riverman]

Are you really saying that addiction isn't the main catalyst in smoking deaths?

Advertisement lead to the addiction.....I was addicted to tobacco most of my life...got the habit from cowboy movies and magazine ads, then in the military it was part of the culture...I had guns too but never got into paranoid weapons stockpiling or anything beyond a hunting rifle or shotgun...we didn't think about govt oppression when I was growing up as a reason for having a gun.....that came with the movies glamorizing shoot em ups..the action film..Rambo….etc...now video games.....being in a war didn't make me feel guns make you safe, that's for sure..guns in conflict usually attract more guns

 

[barfo]

I disagree. I heavily armed public of millions of people is a hell of deterrent from government control. Why do you think the founders put in the second amendment in the first place?

Why do you think they wore powdered wigs and used outhouses?

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Advertisement lead to the addiction.....I was addicted to tobacco most of my life...got the habit from cowboy movies and magazine ads, then in the military it was part of the culture...I had guns too but never got into paranoid weapons stockpiling or anything beyond a hunting rifle or shotgun...we didn't think about govt oppression when I was growing up as a reason for having a gun.....that came with the movies glamorizing shoot em ups

There is advertising for every single product that we purchase. They don't all have addictive properties. And some people have more addictive personalities than others, but it's still addiction that is the main reason for people ruining their lives with alcohol, with smoking, with drugs, and yes.... even with video games. And it's not because of advertising. People still get addicted to cigarettes and we have known for decades how addictive they are and how deadly they are.

 

[Natebishop3]

Why do you think they wore powdered wigs and used outhouses?

barfo

Because they looked fucking fabulous? Why else do you think women stole our high heels?