Lawsuit against Bushmaster and Remington by Sandy Hook families' gets trial date.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/health/sandy-hook-lawsuit/index.html

 

For those who do not know, Bushmaster and Remington are gun manufactures. Bushmaster makes the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which Adam Lanza used. There is a law that prevents gun manufactures from being held liable in cases like this, but, still, if this goes through, it could have major implications. 

 

The bolded part in the following quote also intrigues me:

 

 

The families of the Sandy Hook victims argue that while the guns may not in themselves be unsafe, Bushmaster and Remington's marketing strategy deliberately targets young men, some of whom are inclined to violence.

 

I would like to see if that's true or not. It's not completely unbelievable, but still. An older article on this:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/health/sandy-hook-families-gun-lawsuit/

[~~~~]

Of course a gun isn't safe.

I mean, sure, in some situations a gun may make you safer, but those situations are inherently unsafe situations.

Of all adjectives to use for a weapon of any sort, "safe" seems ridiculous.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Of course a gun isn't safe.

I mean, sure, in some situations a gun may make you safer, but those situations are inherently unsafe situations.

Of all adjectives to use for a weapon of any sort, "safe" seems ridiculous.

I mean, a gun safely locked and stored away probably won't hurt anyone, but, as to what you said, try telling that to the country's right wing radicals. They're completely blind to the downsides of guns.

 

America has always had guns, and always will have guns, but the irresponsibly, a seemingly lack of emphasis on gun satefy and education, and the fact even the obvious measures such as background checks are so hard to pass really irks me.

 

I am actually pro-gun to an extent, and I don't agree with banning guns, but I will never associate myself with these idiotic gun fanatics or give any money to the gun manufactures by buying their product. Well, that, and I would not feel comfortable with a real gun in the house.

[vla1ne]

ok. i get that they're grieving, but how exactly does the gun company hold responsibilities for the actions of the killers? they sell far more guns and bullets than there are shootings using legally owned guns. if they were actually aiming their markets towards people inclined to violence, how are you proving this? even if they get the documents, there's no real way to prove that they are actively targeting young men who are "inclined to violence". a gun is inherently violent, any and all advertisement from a gun company is going to have the presence of violence, because the very reason that you purchase a gun is in hope of averting worse violence (like mugging and rape). this does not mean you are inclined to, or even want to commit violence if owning a gun appeals to you, it simply means that you hope to avert the violence of others.

 

but then again, i know little of gun advertising, so i could be 100% wrong, but from what i know, there's no reason these people should win this lawsuit. i know they're grieving, but this is not a case they should be able to hold. it opens up a can of worms that could crash businesses via proxy blame.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?referer=

 

Js

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Bumping this, because I found an rather interesting article on this: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/sandy-hook-newtown-bushmaster-lawsuit/

 

Let's see what happens.

[chairman ali]

Guns are safe. People aren't.

[Lunar Origins]

Guns are safe. People aren't.

 

Words stolen from my mouth.

 

I'm a bit of a cynic on this subject, but...

 

There's not a damn thing we can do to prevent someone from going out of their way to get what they want, be it guns, bombs, or whatever.  They'll find a way to cause terror, and our misguided attempts at taking away the 'big toys' don't deter anyone.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Jesus funk, people still don't realize the vast majority of gun homicides are done by individuals with hand guns not assault weapons.......

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Jesus f***, people still don't realize the vast majority of gun homicides are done by individuals with hand guns not assault weapons.......

Which the FBI data backs, actually.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls#disablemobile

 

Tbh, I'm more interested in whether the marketing aspect is true than the lawsuit itself.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Which the FBI data backs, actually.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls#disablemobile

This man

 

 

scares people more than this man

 

The liberals don't give a rats ass about the lives lost, they're just as bad as the NRA

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

This man

 

 

scares people more than this man

 

 

The liberals don't give a rats ass about the lives lost, they're just as bad as the NRA

Both sides are bad. It's not even about the lives lost. If it was, there probably would be some sort of middle ground, because I doubt just because someone is pro-gun, it means want gun violence and mass shootings to happen. It seems like the average gun owner gets demonized in a way because of all the violence plus probably the more radical pro-gunners.

 

I mean, I get where people are coming from when it comes to assault weapons, but, solely focusing on assault weapons when handguns are more commonly used in homicides just doesn't feel right.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Both sides are bad. It's not even about the lives lost. If it was, there probably would be some sort of middle ground, because I doubt just because someone is pro-gun, it means want gun violence and mass shootings to happen. It seems like the average gun owner gets demonized in a way because of all the violence plus probably the more radical pro-gunners.

 

I mean, I get where people are coming from when it comes to assault weapons, but, solely focusing on assault weapons when handguns are more commonly used in homicides just doesn't feel right.

Assault weapons are the low hanging fruit, because the nut-jobs that do the mass shootings tend to prefer them. What the liberals conveniently forget is how a mass shooting tends to occur 1-2 times a year at most, while people are murdered by hand guns on a daily basis. 

 

The middle ground does exist, that's people like me who come from law abiding gun owning families who want stronger background checks. Or better yet, have Law enforcement actually do sheet...take Columbine for an example...they literally had a blog post about wanting to kill people. Or Aroura? Holmes dropped off the deep end months before he shot up the theater. But that would involve money, privacy, and actual effort. Three things no politician wants to get into. You have the fringes being the American Right which thinks nothing is wrong...or the American Left who can't shut up about Assault Weapons and Buy Back

[vla1ne]

This man

 

 

 

scares people more than this man

 

 

The liberals don't give a rats ass about the lives lost, they're just as bad as the NRA

oi, don't lump all liberals together man. it may seem weird to you, but there do exist liberals capable of reading and accepting facts.

 

some liberals are only asking for better security and revised policies, in the same way that the loudest voices in the NRA are the nutjobs, the loudest voices from the liberal side are often the ones who want the strictest paranoia controls. look for the center of the liberals and NRA, the sane people of both parties usually hang out there. 

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Assault weapons are the low hanging fruit, because the nut-jobs that do the mass shootings tend to prefer them. What the liberals conveniently forget is how a mass shooting tends to occur 1-2 times a year at most, while people are murdered by hand guns on a daily basis.

 

The middle ground does exist, that's people like me who come from law abiding gun owning families who want stronger background checks. Or better yet, have Law enforcement actually do s***...take Columbine for an example...they literally had a blog post about wanting to kill people. Or Aroura? Holmes dropped off the deep end months before he shot up the theater. But that would involve money, privacy, and actual effort. Three things no politician wants to get into. You have the fringes being the American Right which thinks nothing is wrong...or the American Left who can't shut up about Assault Weapons and Buy Back

Which is also why we need a better mental health system alongside stronger background checks.

 

Also, most of the gun violence in America is gang and/or drug related. Give these kids something to do, be it sports or whatever, so they can stay off the streets and not end up in jail or the grave. You can't save everyone, but maybe we can reduce our violence problem in the less fortunate neighborhoods by doing something like this. Also, actually start fighting poverty.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Give them jobs and end the "war" on drugs. The War has honestly just overpopulated our jails, made dealing a more rewarding occupation, and punishing people who already have problems.

 

There's a LOT of things to fix in America (like you noted MH), and Assault Weapons are not on that list

oi, don't lump all liberals together man. it may seem weird to you, but there do exist liberals capable of reading and accepting facts.

 

some liberals are only asking for better security and revised policies, in the same way that the loudest voices in the NRA are the nutjobs, the loudest voices from the liberal side are often the ones who want the strictest paranoia controls. look for the center of the liberals and NRA, the sane people of both parties usually hang out there. 

 

*shrugs* Hard to do when our moderate standard barer, Hillary, praised Aussie and English gun control measures. I'd hope most people just want better security and revised policies, but afais, the left just wants to hang a strawman and call it a day

[Aerion Brightflame]

Or just reduce poverty. Reducing poverty and increasing social mobility helps a lot because people no longer need to commit crimes to survive. Which means people need guns for crime less.

 

It doesn't technically need to be bridging the wealth gap, it just means increasing wages relative to the cost of living. Or Universal Basic Income. That also works. 

 

 

*shrugs* Hard to do when our moderate standard barer, Hillary, praised Aussie and English gun control measures. I'd hope most people just want better security and revised policies, but afais, the left just wants to hang a strawman and call it a day

 

You can praise the measures of a different country for being effective without wanting to introduce them to your own nation. Because no matter what your views on guns are, you can't deny that the Australian and British methods have been very effective in reducing gun crime. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 Because no matter what your views on guns are, you can't deny that the Australian and British methods have been very effective in reducing gun crime. 

"I do not know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at."

 

That reeks of ignorance and buy back to me...I don't particularity care that her spokeswoman backed off that stance later on

 

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

 

Yes I can. I think there is a case to be made

 

"In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh. More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison."

 

http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf

[vla1ne]

Give them jobs and end the "war" on drugs. The War has honestly just overpopulated our jails, made dealing a more rewarding occupation, and punishing people who already have problems.

 

There's a LOT of things to fix in America (like you noted MH), and Assault Weapons are not on that list

 

*shrugs* Hard to do when our moderate standard barer, Hillary, praised Aussie and English gun control measures. I'd hope most people just want better security and revised policies, but afais, the left just wants to hang a strawman and call it a day

to be fair, from what i know of hillary, she's not exactly the best role model. but prasing another countries method does not mean that you think it'll work in your own country. I'm not sure if hillary actually advocates implementing said policies, but if all she was doing was praising the effectiveness, then there's no real reason to go against that, since in those countries, it did happen to work to an extent. 

 

in america of course it wouldn't, we're nowhere near as isolated, and we have far more land (and sea) to comb where guns could slip through were we to ban them in comparison to both places. she might have praised them, but hopefully she was not recommending copying them.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

to be fair, from what i know of hillary, she's not exactly the best role model. but prasing another countries method does not mean that you think it'll work in your own country. I'm not sure if hillary actually advocates implementing said policies, but if all she was doing was praising the effectiveness, then there's no real reason to go against that, since in those countries, it did happen to work. 

 

in amrerica of course it wouldn't, we're nowhere near as isolated, and we have far more land (and sea) to comb where guns could slip through were we to ban them in comparison to both places. she might have praised them, but hopefully she was not recommending copying them.

I dunno what else "look into" could mean here. Anyway it won't get through congress if a President Clinton tries to pull that sheet on us. She couldn't implement it if she wanted to, but the implication that she looks favorably on that trampling of the American law bothers me greatly (and this is coming from a bloke who voted for her)

 

Why would anyone praise Australia when the impact isn't nearly what they promised (I haven't read up entirely on the situation in England, but I've heard it's similar).

[vla1ne]

I dunno what else "look into" could mean here. Anyway it won't get through congress if a President Clinton tries to pull that s*** on us. She couldn't implement it if she wanted to, but the implication that she looks favorably on that trampling of the American law bothers me greatly (and this is coming from a bloke who voted for her)

 

Why would anyone praise Australia when the impact isn't nearly what they promised (I haven't read up entirely on the situation in England, but I've heard it's similar).

you got me there. i'm not sure either, but i don't see the harm in her at least trying to find a way that it could be implemented more effectively. not saying i support a gun ban, but if she's at least capable of creating a method that it'll be more effective than that of Australia and Europe, then that'd be fine. since she'd be actively backing her words with an honest (for once) attempt at action.

 

as for yor second point, that's what i was asking for from the start. you have to address individual issues if you want to gain ground in the argument of "why those against guns are wrong" yes, i agree that many liberals are more afraid of the big guns than the are of the ones that actually kill more people per year, but claiming they're all just as bad as the NRA will bring very few, if any people to the center of the argument.

 

 

 

but this is getting a bit off topic, is there any update in the Remington case? because hopefully it doesn't make it to court, or at least it loses hard in it's case. if it wins then it'll set a precedent that guns are the problem, and not the people holding them. i know guns are inherently violent, but suing the company instead of educating the people sets a terrible precedent in which people will hold companies accountable instead of the people who committed the actions.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I dunno what else "look into" could mean here. Anyway it won't get through congress if a President Clinton tries to pull that s*** on us. She couldn't implement it if she wanted to, but the implication that she looks favorably on that trampling of the American law bothers me greatly (and this is coming from a bloke who voted for her)

 

Why would anyone praise Australia when the impact isn't nearly what they promised (I haven't read up entirely on the situation in England, but I've heard it's similar).

 

Gun policies were introduced in England in the wake of a mass shooting at a primary school in Dunblane. 

 

In response private ownership of handguns was essentially made illegal. This and other subsequent policies meant there hasn't been a single mass shooting within a school (To the best of my knowledge) in the past 20 years. The most recent large scale piece of violent crime (Save for the Riots a few years back) was a series of shootings in Cumbria in 2010. Between Dunblane and Cumbria where 12 people died, the only other major incident on this scale was the 2007 bombings in London. 

 

The UK might still have a problem with knife crime, but gun crime is not an issue. And gun restrictions were not imposed to decrease the overall crime rate (Sure, that would be a theoretical side effect of the measures but that does not mean they are outright failures).

 

So again, you can't really cite them as failures. So Hilary praising them isn't a bad thing. Saying 'she'll look into them' is intentionally vague and doesn't actually tell us anything. Like most of the things she says. 

 

I also don't think being 7th on the list for murder rate among western nations is something to base an argument about efficiency of measures against crime either. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Total failuries, no. But for the harsh laws on gun ownership, England does still have a share of gun related deaths (as in non mass shooting deaths).

 

As a proponent of both a registery and Bi-annual mental health checks, I honestly think that people with stress in their lives is what ends up killing people, not the guns themselves. Like recently there was a shooting where the gunman was a kid who'd been bullied horrifically for years. The problem there was no so much the gun as the negligence we pay to our population. I think removing guns from our culture for the wrong doing of a disturbed few instead of helping those few is a low hanging fruit. America DOES have a crime problem. And criminals are already breaking the law, so do you really think they'll stop using guns if we pulled an England? I rather doubt it. England and America have different issues at the end of the day

[cr47t]

What is this again?

[epicmemesbro]

In my opinion, lawsuits directed at manufactures should be because of two things:

 

1. The manufacture's product had an unintended side effect that either they didn't know or knew and tried to cover it up and deceive the public, such as hair gel causing cancer for instance.

 

2. The manufacture's product had a defect that resulted in injury, such as the brake pedal malfunctioning in a car.

 

I think it is ridiculous to file a lawsuit against a firearm manufacture because their product was used unlawfully. It does not mach the before mentioned criteria: it had no unintended defect nor was the weapon defective. Encouraging lawsuits like these tend to be done for demonizing the firearm manufacturing industry.