Families of Sandy Hook shooting victims can sue gun mfg. Remington
50 replies, posted
this is about as logical as suing the manufacturer of trucks when one gets hijacked and plowed into a crowd of people in Europe
this is going to set an incredibly dangerous precedent
While I don't necessarily support this lawsuit, can't we all agree that guns shouldn't be advertised this way?
Owning a rifle or pistol is an awesome responsibility, not a fucking man-card.
I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree that that ad is fucking atrocious and insulting to everyone's sense of decency
This is so contrary to common sense that I can't believe it's actually gotten this far, like many others have said it's like holding auto makers responsible for the actions of drunk/dangerous drivers.
Lenient advertisement requirements/standards/oversight, combined with the toxic nature of masculinity in the US and you've got a recipe for homicide.
I mean in a shouldn't-we-legally-prevent-this-from-happening way.
It just seems irresponsible, given how powerful we know advertising to be psychologically, and we've done similar things with stuff like cigarettes.
What rule would you suggest? I'm having a difficult time thinking of a way to prevent it that wouldn't seriously infringe on legitimate peoples.
Maybe something similar to other restricted print advertisements, some kind of plain-advertising? Definitely something that would stop them from their ads like "stomp thine enemy" or the truly perplexing ones like this
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107231/a1593504-ecda-4f0c-90c2-18c36c1b79d6/image.png
because breaching is a common self-defense maneuver, right?
I suspect that ad is targeted at Law Enforcement agencies.
That specific ad was published in a police magazine
I think an ad like this depends on where it's being displayed. My dad used to get a Police magazine that was fun to look through when I was a kid and it would often have ads for stuff like that and other cop things like light bars and radios and shit obviously not targets for regular people.
Now an ad like that in a regular supermarket magazine or something would be completely different.
Ah, that's on me then, I thought Remington Defense -> Remington self defense.
Bushmaster is pretty infamous for garbage advertising yeah
let me know if you ever become wealthy so I can sue you in reference of your temporarily discomforting posts
The thing with Sandy Hook is it is one of those cases where better mental health services would have helped. By the time of the massacre, he was living with his mother (who enabled his behavior, and taught him how to shoot) but would only communicate through email, even though they lived in the same home. She'd just slide food into his room. He had very real mental health issues and she refused to get him real treatment for them (its one of the reasons she split from her husband, he was not happy with how she was enabling his behavior and wanted him to get real help).
While I don't disagree with the notion, that's a bad example. Nail guns are full of redundant trigger and muzzle safeties to ensure that the only thing you use them for us fastening wood, only when you intend to. If a mechanism fails and somebody gets shot, you *can* sue the manufacturer.
A gun on the other hand is meant to shoot at animate or inanimate targets at a distance, it's a very different design intent and circumstance.
Devil's advocate here, if we can agree that advertisements can be damaging psychologically, and we can agree that at least some harmful advertisements exist, and there is a law against harmful advertisements, why exactly aren't these gun manufacturers liable to be hit with a lawsuit?
It's a reach to say that the advertisements caused the shooting, but given how powerful advertisements are for shaping the psyche of groups, it wouldn't be a stretch to say they're negatively impacting the overall state of affairs with extreme agents.
I'm not at all opposed to suing for actually reckless inciteful advertising but I'm not seeing that here.
Trust me, gun nuts have been trying to put Remington out of business for years. If someone comes up with a good reason, by all means, go for it.
Personally I'd consider an advertisement issuing you a man card for your big-boy gun to be pretty reckless, but this one's for the courts to decide.
I wish they had more examples of said reckless advertisements they were displaying publicly, if that's the only one (and it very well might be) their case isn't that strong. I also know that companies use all sorts of segmenting APIS to target various groups of consumers, for all we know there might be some extremely toxic shit floating out there that we as consumers just don't really run into.
They won the right to sue, but they have to follow through and present arguments good enough to win as well. This will probably go to the SCOTUS
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.