• Court Appeal clears path for possible Sandy Hook survivors to sue Remington Arms for school shooting
    76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=daschnek;52892238]While I don't agree that suing gun companies after mass shootings is the best way to deal with mass shootings, gun companies should have to bear some of the costs related to the suffering their products cause. We force car manufacturers to make safer and lower polluting cars, making them bear the social cost of their products. We do the same with a wide variety of other industries - one of the most important roles of the state in the economy is to regulate corporations and make them internalize some of the costs they place on society. Why should gun manufacturers be any different?[/QUOTE] You can't sue Jack Daniels after a drunk driver kills a family of four. You can't sue Toyota after their truck is used in a mass killing. Companies are responsible for the social cost of defective products, not the misuse of properly-functioning ones. [QUOTE=download;52892257]Shooting that have been stopped at low death tolls don't exactly make the news very often.[/QUOTE] This is important. In Chicago, an Uber driver shot a would-be mass shooter after he opened fire on a crowd. In Oregon, a mass shooter at a mall was stopped by a concealed carrier who held him at gunpoint. These are blips that don't make the evening news, and obviously aren't counted as concealed carriers stopping mass shootings because they never reached the death toll to be considered mass shootings. Looking at 'mass shootings stopped by concealed carriers' and concluding that concealed carry is useless is like looking at 'three-alarm house fires stopped by fire extinguishers' and concluding that fire extinguishers are useless. It's looking at the wrong data.
Does this mean I can sue Ford if someone runs me over in an F-150?
[b] "the AR-15 was designed for the United States military" [/b] What the fuck. [b] "gun companies should never have entrusted the rifle to an untrained civilian public." [/b] Well, you got a lot more than Remington to sue.. also.. Remington isn't known for their AR's, how about Colt or Bushmaster? lmao. Better get suing!
[QUOTE=Episode;52893532][b] "the AR-15 was designed for the United States military" [/b] What the fuck. [b] "gun companies should never have entrusted the rifle to an untrained civilian public." [/b] Well, you got a lot more than Remington to sue.. also.. Remington isn't known for their AR's, how about Colt or Bushmaster? lmao. Better get suing![/QUOTE] Wasn't the rifle Lanza used a bushmaster? And yeah, as far as I'm aware, Rustington barely does AR sales. They're all about their shitty 700 series boltguns and 870 series shotguns.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52893547]Wasn't the rifle Lanza used a bushmaster? And yeah, as far as I'm aware, Rustington barely does AR sales. They're all about their shitty 700 series boltguns and 870 series shotguns.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he had a really basic M4 style Bushmaster AR.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52892221]And the answer would be "good guy with a gun thing is a myth"[/QUOTE] you ever notice how there's almost no mass shootings in Mississippi? it's because with the enhanced carry permit we can carry effectively anywhere. other than some domestic violence cases and a spree shooting earlier this year (where the guy wasnt allowed to own a gun anyway) that meet the technical definition but not the MO, we've had a grand total of 2 mass shootings. one was stopped by the vice principal shooting the kid doing the shooting, and one was some nutcase who shot up his office full of people who were unarmed due to company policy before turning his shotgun around and painting the wall.
Yes, because it's all Remington's fault a crazy lunatic killed a bunch of children with one of their guns. If Remington didn't even exist, he would have just used a different gun. This is dumb.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52892290] Mmmm I sure do love anecdotal evidence, gimme more.[/QUOTE] "This example doesnt count because it doesnt support my point". :thinking: [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] I'm gonna repost this because i feel its relevant. [QUOTE=AaronM202;52891909]God i'm so fucking tired of gun control debates. Its never, [i]ever[/i] going to go anywhere. Ever. And anything you could even remotely try to do in reality would take such an incredibly long time without even a guarantee of it working in the end that its not worth it. And thats assuming nobody would go fucking mental over people trying to take them away, which would absolutely happen. That effort would be, and [I]SHOULD[/I] be better spent on the root causes of crime and violence to begin with, social inequality, poverty, mental illness, etc. At least theres some semblance of a possibility of doing shit from that angle. Cause the reality is, theres enough firearms in this country for almost every man, woman, and child, so they're already here, and the right to them is in the bill of rights, so banning them just isnt going to ever happen given the already immense difficulty of actually trying to go about the act of amending the constitution coupled with how polarizing the topic is. No matter how anti-gun or pro-gun or whatever-gun you are, thats just how it is. Its a functionally useless argument to have, because its purely hypothetical in the end. In practical terms, it always seems like people who want to look like they care about wanting to see change but not bothering to really think out how that would ever work in practical realistic terms.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52892290] Mmmm I sure do love anecdotal evidence, gimme more.[/QUOTE] So because it proves you wrong it's anecdotal evidence? You might as well just shout "Fake news!!", because you're just as bad as the people who do that.
[QUOTE=butre;52894225]you ever notice how there's almost no mass shootings in Mississippi? it's because with the enhanced carry permit we can carry effectively anywhere. other than some domestic violence cases and a spree shooting earlier this year (where the guy wasnt allowed to own a gun anyway) that meet the technical definition but not the MO, we've had a grand total of 2 mass shootings. one was stopped by the vice principal shooting the kid doing the shooting, and one was some nutcase who shot up his office full of people who were unarmed due to company policy before turning his shotgun around and painting the wall.[/QUOTE] Or ya know.. New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Vermont.... all places with very low amounts of gun laws and a large amount of gun owners, yet places like Chicago, California with extremely strict laws have shootings almost daily. [QUOTE=EcksDee;52892290]Title of the article is "Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings" Answer is yes. "Is it worth the general increased gun crime rate?" Answer is no. Article doesn't talk statistics, but lists 10 cases during [B]10 years[/B] when this has happened. Which considering the number of mass shootings is a drop in the ocean. let me give you actual papers, not borderline anecdotes. [URL]https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/[/URL] [URL]http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510[/URL] So yeah, while you can of course find examples where "Gun-wielding American super-patriot saves one thousand people from an untimely death", but for every one example of that, there's probably like 10-1000 shootings or gun crimes that would not have happened if gun ownership rates were lower. Mmmm I sure do love anecdotal evidence, gimme more.[/QUOTE] So the "synthetic" states saw a 15% rise in violent crime yet nowhere in that article does it say those violent crimes were committed with firearms.. love it
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52892290]Title of the article is "Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings" Answer is yes. "Is it worth the general increased gun crime rate?" Answer is no. Article doesn't talk statistics, but lists 10 cases during [B]10 years[/B] when this has happened. Which considering the number of mass shootings is a drop in the ocean. let me give you actual papers, not borderline anecdotes. [URL]https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/[/URL] [URL]http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510[/URL] So yeah, while you can of course find examples where "Gun-wielding American super-patriot saves one thousand people from an untimely death", but for every one example of that, there's probably like 10-1000 shootings or gun crimes that would not have happened if gun ownership rates were lower. Mmmm I sure do love anecdotal evidence, gimme more.[/QUOTE] I'd cite John Lott or Gary Mauser to refute this, since basically everything they've both ever published contradicts that, but you'd probably just dismiss them as "NRA Shills" or some shit like everyone does whenever their names are brought up in a gun debate on here.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52892941][B]You can't sue Jack Daniels after a drunk driver kills a family of four[/B]. You can't sue Toyota after their truck is used in a mass killing. Companies are responsible for the social cost of defective products, not the misuse of properly-functioning ones.[/QUOTE] No shit, and I didn't say that I agree with suing gun companies. But we do regulate the manufacture and sale of alcohol. We regulate the safety of cars. Whether or not the products are considered defective is completely irrelevant. Guns are tools made explicitly for killing, and they make the job much easier. That imposes a huge social cost, which is so evident it doesn't merit further discussion. Some action must be taken to limit the activities of gun companies themselves.
[QUOTE=daschnek;52895930]No shit, and I didn't say that I agree with suing gun companies. But we do regulate the manufacture and sale of alcohol. We regulate the safety of cars. Whether or not the products are considered defective is completely irrelevant. Guns are tools made explicitly for killing, and they make the job much easier. That imposes a huge social cost, which is so evident it doesn't merit further discussion. Some action must be taken to limit the activities of gun companies themselves.[/QUOTE] we already regulate the manufacture and sale of guns way way stricter than cars or alcohol
[QUOTE=daschnek;52895930]No shit, and I didn't say that I agree with suing gun companies. But we do regulate the manufacture and sale of alcohol. We regulate the safety of cars. Whether or not the products are considered defective is completely irrelevant. Guns are tools made explicitly for killing, and they make the job much easier. That imposes a huge social cost, which is so evident it doesn't merit further discussion. Some action must be taken to limit the activities of gun companies themselves.[/QUOTE] You can't just deem something to "not merit further discussion" in order to avoid being proven wrong. [B]You are wrong.[/B] It doesn't fucken work that way.
[QUOTE=daschnek;52895930]No shit, and I didn't say that I agree with suing gun companies. But we do regulate the manufacture and sale of alcohol. We regulate the safety of cars. Whether or not the products are considered defective is completely irrelevant. Guns are tools made explicitly for killing, and they make the job much easier. That imposes a huge social cost, which is so evident it doesn't merit further discussion. Some action must be taken to limit the activities of gun companies themselves.[/QUOTE] Alcohol directly causes almost three times as many deaths per year, has no 'legitimate'/productive use like self-defense or hunting (it's purely recreational), and has a social cost beyond body count in lives ruined and families torn apart by the effects of alcoholism. In spite of that, the sale and distribution of firearms is already far more tightly regulated than that of alcohol. So what regulations on the manufacture and sale of alcohol do not currently exist for guns that you would like to see?
[QUOTE=butre;52894225]you ever notice how there's almost no mass shootings in Mississippi? it's because with the enhanced carry permit we can carry effectively anywhere. other than some domestic violence cases and a spree shooting earlier this year (where the guy wasnt allowed to own a gun anyway) that meet the technical definition but not the MO, we've had a grand total of 2 mass shootings. one was stopped by the vice principal shooting the kid doing the shooting, and one was some nutcase who shot up his office full of people who were unarmed due to company policy before turning his shotgun around and painting the wall.[/QUOTE] Oops I accidentally hit star instead of reply but anyway: I don't really think the amount of guns available to people who are already legally allowed to own them has any significant effect on crime, negative or positive.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.