Lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

[Procrustes Stretched]

Airlines don’t get the benefit of explicit Constitutional protection.

Guys like you refuse to grasp that motor vehicles result in many deaths. Yet we don’t ban cars.

It isn’t the guns that cause the deaths. It is the folks who misuse them.

Guns are designed for a purpose. Airplanes and Autos are designed to...? Kitchen knives, hammers and axes and other tools are designed to...? Of course people can and do use most anything to maim or kill.

But, although many people use guns for target practice, and not hunting there is no denying that the guns at issue are not made for purposes other than to maim and kill. Some people use them for other purposes, but that is not what the lawsuits are about. Are they? I'd like to read up on it more.

note: I don't believe there have been any credible or legal arguments that have blamed guns for killing people. No one claims guns sans people, maim and kill. Guns do not fire by themselves. No one claims guns can fire by themselves. There are laws and proposed laws that go after people who maim and kill with guns. But what is interesting is how the lobbyists and many gun advocates, fought and fight against some of those laws.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

every person aged 17 to 45 is part of the militia.

dante it is federal law so not fake news,

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

every person aged 17 to 45 is part of the militia.

misrepresentation.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dante it is federal law so not fake news,

What is fake is your representation.

lacking nuance, and a full context. I understand how much it would take to lay it all out -- so go ahead with your bumper sticker drive by posts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you just proved my point. read your own link

 

[justoffal]

I'm fascinated by this. I'm not anti-guns. I'm not Kneejerk against all gun control proposals. I'm fascinated by the legal issue(s) here. This isn't really about the 2nd Amendment 'right'. The article is speaking to the responsibilities that come with freedom and commerce. This is a huge issue now regarding holding gun makers accountable.

I'm going to "

Listen to This Article​

Download New York Times Audio
Listen to this story in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.

Gun Makers and Mass Shootings

The Lawyer Trying to Hold Gunmakers Responsible for Mass Shootings

Josh Koskoff’s legal victory against Remington has raised the possibility of a new form of gun control: lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

www.nytimes.com

The slope is too slippery. People will be suing the cell phone companies the moment they develop brain cancer from any cause. People will be suing cutlery manufacturers if the knife they manufacture fits too conveniently in the hand of a child. People will be suing fast food restaurants the moment they eat a Big Mac and get an upset stomach because they have an ulcer. This is one venue that has no possibility of sane success.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You should be speaking French as a thank you.

We saved their asses in two World Wars.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here's the problem with this flawed analogy.

Cars are HEAVILY regulated. To operate a car, I have to be licensed, insured, and registered.

I agree, it's the people who misuse guns that are the problem.

So let's get guns out of the hands of people who are likely to misuse them, especially if they aren't part of a well-regulated militia.

How do you propose to do that? We are waiting, as per usual.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The slope is too slippery. People will be suing the cell phone companies the moment they develop brain cancer from any reason. People will be suing cutlery manufacturers if the knife they manufacture fits too conveniently in the hand of a child. People will be suing fast food restaurants the moment they eat a Big Mac and get an upset stomach because they have an ulcer. This is one venue that has no possibility of sane success.

There is no slope. The lawsuits are succeeding. Arguments made based on denial and ignorance are not valid or welcome.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is no slope. The lawsuits are succeeding. Arguments made based on denial and ignorance are not valid or welcome.

Link to your imagination please!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This isn't really about the 2nd Amendment 'right'.

True.

In fact, it’s not about the Second Amendment at all.

One interesting aspect of this is the reckless, unnecessary promotion of AR platform rifles and carbines by gun makers – they sell themselves.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you just proved my point. read your own link

You've ignored what it is I've exposed about your bumper sticker comment.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

True.

In fact, it’s not about the Second Amendment at all.

One interesting aspect of this is the reckless, unnecessary promotion of AR platform rifles and carbines by gun makers – they sell themselves.

It isn't, yet it is peripherally.

 

[BackAgain]

Guns are designed for a purpose. Airplanes and Autos are designed to...? Kitchen knives, hammers and axes and other tools are designed to...? Of course people can and do use most anything to maim or kill.

But, although many people use guns for target practice, and not hunting there is no denying that the guns at issue are not made for purposes other than to maim and kill. Some people use them for other purposes, but that is not what the lawsuits are about. Are they? I'd like to read up on it more.

note: I don't believe there have been any credible or legal arguments that have blamed guns for killing people. No one claims guns sans people, maim and kill. Guns do not fire by themselves. No one claims guns can fire by themselves. There are laws and proposed laws that go after people who maim and kill with guns. But what is interesting is how the lobbyists and many gun advocates, fought and fight against some of those laws.

You are free to regulate cars.

You aren’t free: to regulate guns.

Now, that said, as I previously noted, I happen not to be a 2d Amendment absolutist. Therefore, I am content to concede something with which other 2d Amendment supporters may not agree:

My position is that some (limited) regulation (like licensing and even permits) is ok.

 

[Auld Phart]

Or they could change their conduct.

The Airlines refused to upgrade security. They refused to put re-inforced doors on the cockpit, or hire competent security, or a bunch of other things that would impact the bottom line. Until 9/11 happened, and they lost billions in damages and lost business.

The problem here is the gun manufacturers' conduct. They decided that when hunting fell out of fashion as a sport, they needed a new market, and that was nitwits afraid of crime or the government.

For instance, when the drug manufacturers realized that anti-histamines were being used to make Cyrstal Meth, they didn't shrug their shoulders, they got behind sensible rules to limit who could buy them and how much they were buying.



And then we get a new court to reconsider the opinion... one the gun manufacturers will be BEGGING for after they've been hit with enough lawsuits.



Nope, it's a commerce issue. The gun industry decided that Nancy Lanza was a prime market, even though she was batshit crazy and had a kid who was even crazier. You market to crazy people, you accept the results.

 

[Auld Phart]

Like the Tin Man, I just needed a little oil.

I believe the legal issues are more than trying to outlaw specific types of guns, and well said on the social impact. Most lawsuits like the ones in the OP, will and do have a social impact. Mass shootings affect the whole of society. But much people are talking about are side issues, and possible fallout from any wins of those bringing the lawsuits.

The economic injury to people engaged in commerce.

I believe the hopes for some who cheer on the lawsuits are to penalize the manufacturers, and the hopes of others is to put them out of business. I don't see the legal issues involved in these lawsuits as going to any argument against gun manufacturers being in the business of manufacturing guns. A side effect could be some manufacturers going out of business, but that is the nature of business and law in our capitalistic, consumer society. Not sure why, but writing this reminds me of the story of the Pinto and the Ford Bean Counters.

The Pinto Memo: ‘It’s Cheaper to let them Burn!’

None

www.spokesman.com

The social impact: It's about the responsibilities of manufacturers to the public, the responsibilities to society.






Freedoms and Liberties are not Free. And we are a nation of laws, not men or businesses.

Second Amendment issues will be affected.

You MIGHT have a point, if the firearms being targeted haven't been the cause of minimal damage over the years.

'Assault weapons' have been the cause of less than 400 mass shooting deaths over the last 20 years

 

[justoffal]

How do you propose to do that? We are waiting, as per usual.

Well that's easy.... You simply make it illegal for anyone who claims to be a Republican to own a gun. That's really what the aim of the proposed legislative fiasco is anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The slope is too slippery. People will be suing the cell phone companies the moment they develop brain cancer from any cause. People will be suing cutlery manufacturers if the knife they manufacture fits too conveniently in the hand of a child. People will be suing fast food restaurants the moment they eat a Big Mac and get an upset stomach because they have an ulcer. This is one venue that has no possibility of sane success.

As already correctly noted, this fails as a slippery slope fallacy – and a false comparison fallacy.

We can throw in a strawman fallacy as well.

It’s a lie to claim that the purpose of these lawsuits is to realize a de facto ‘ban’ of AR 15s, or to put gun makers out of business – that’s baseless fearmongering.

Should these suits be successful, AR 15s will remain available and affordable – all that will change is how they’re advertised.

 

[justoffal]

The gun industry makes a product. It's not up to them who buys that product we have a commerce department for that.

 

[justoffal]

As already correctly noted, this fails as a slippery slope fallacy – and a false comparison fallacy.

We can throw in a strawman fallacy as well.

It’s a lie to claim that the purpose of these lawsuits is to realize a de facto ‘ban’ of AR 15s, or to put gun makers out of business – that’s baseless fearmongering.

Should these suits be successful, AR 15s will remain available and affordable – all that will change is how they’re advertised.

I saw no correctly noted failure. This is a slippery slope plain and simple and it will not stop with lawsuits against gun manufacturers but instead it will be used as a legal precedent.