But Why? I still don't understand why gun manufacturers should be held accountable for what happens with their guns after they have been sold. They don't have any control over what happens with...
But Why? I still don't understand why gun manufacturers should be held accountable for what happens with their guns after they have been sold. They don't have any control over what happens with the guns after they get sold. I don't sue the car maker when I get in an accident in their vehicle.
Because if you market an item purposefully deadly, you are held to a higher liability standard. If a corporation marketed rat poison as a perfect thing to put in teacher's coffee, and packaged in...
Because if you market an item purposefully deadly, you are held to a higher liability standard.
If a corporation marketed rat poison as a perfect thing to put in teacher's coffee, and packaged in what looks like school supplies, we'd sure as fuck would be suing them out of business.
Gun makers have a special protection carved out. This isnt right.
If your vehicle was purposefully designed to get into accidents, and marketed as such, you sure as hell would be suing them.
But the weapons weren't marketed as the perfect thing for a school shooting or any mass shooting. They are marketed as something to be used against enemies/threats and I've yet to see anything in...
If a corporation marketed rat poison as a perfect thing to put in teacher's coffee, and packaged in what looks like school supplies, we'd sure as fuck would be suing them out of business.
If your vehicle was purposefully designed to get into accidents, and marketed as such, you sure as hell would be suing them.
But the weapons weren't marketed as the perfect thing for a school shooting or any mass shooting. They are marketed as something to be used against enemies/threats and I've yet to see anything in this case where the shooter's motive was because the victims were a threat or an enemy. Can a gun be used in a mass shooting? Yes. Is the manufacturer telling you to do so? No. (Not that I've seen or interpret as such, but this will ultimately be up to the courts.) Can rat poison be used to kill a teacher? Yes. Is the manufacturer saying to do so? No. Not even in an incredibly vague advertisement, by the standards of this conversation, simply stating it kills.
Why would someone sue if my vehicle was designed and marketed to do something and it did that thing?
Gun makers have a special protection carved out. This isnt right.
Notice no ad for rat poison these days is marketed as "Safe to handle" anymore?
Can rat poison be used to kill a teacher? Yes. Is the manufacturer saying to do so? No. Not even in an incredibly vague advertisement, by the standards of this conversation, simply stating it kills.
Notice no ad for rat poison these days is marketed as "Safe to handle" anymore?
When rat poison was sold as "safe to handle", there almost were assuredly suits, and then consumer regulations prohibiting that sort of labeling. Kinda like labeling guns as "safe"... They aren't....
When rat poison was sold as "safe to handle", there almost were assuredly suits, and then consumer regulations prohibiting that sort of labeling.
Kinda like labeling guns as "safe"... They aren't. They are designed to kill, and should be held to a higher consumer product safety standard. And they are not. They are in fact held to a lower consumer product safety standard.
Guns are marketed as "guns for warfare, in your hands" and "something to have, when there's something to kill". And protected when they do just that. Until now.
Based on what metrics? Could be the tiny print giving me a headache, but I'm not seeing where they're advertised as such in the links below nor when googled.
They are designed to kill, and should be held to a higher consumer product safety standard. And they are not. They are in fact held to a lower consumer product safety standard.
Based on what metrics?
Guns are marketed as "guns for warfare, in your hands" and "something to have, when there's something to kill". And protected when they do just that. Until now.
Could be the tiny print giving me a headache, but I'm not seeing where they're advertised as such in the links below nor when googled.
Choose a better one as it's very nearly 1:1 Cars:Guns. I'm still awaiting details on how they're held to lower consumer product safety standards and wondering if you're just going to ignore the...
Choose a better one as it's very nearly 1:1 Cars:Guns.
I'm still awaiting details on how they're held to lower consumer product safety standards and wondering if you're just going to ignore the impossible to find quoted marketing...
Ok, they're 1:1. Ignoring for a moment there are far more cars in the US than guns, and that each car is operated for far more hours per person, per year than guns are... Cars don't have special...
Ok, they're 1:1. Ignoring for a moment there are far more cars in the US than guns, and that each car is operated for far more hours per person, per year than guns are...
Cars don't have special consumer liability protections carved out for them. If an auto maker designed a car to kill people, and it killed people they would be sued to bankruptcy.
Per capita is all that matters, and they're both the same. Cars don't have any requirements for purchase other than funds. While firearms require at the very least background checks and at the...
Per capita is all that matters, and they're both the same. Cars don't have any requirements for purchase other than funds. While firearms require at the very least background checks and at the higher ends licensing and permission from local/state governments for ownership.
If an auto maker designed a car to kill people, and it killed people they would be sued to bankruptcy.
Again you say this and again you can provide no proof of such and again you'll likely ignore me pointing this out:
No one will sue the manufacturer for their product doing something it was designed to do. No one is suing Dewalt because their drill made a hole when that's what it was designed to do.
To operate a car in the US, you must be licensed, carrying insurance, and your license is subject to revocation from numerous violations or health reasons. It is quite true. Automakers have been...
Cars don't have any requirements for purchase other than funds.
To operate a car in the US, you must be licensed, carrying insurance, and your license is subject to revocation from numerous violations or health reasons.
Again you say this and again you can provide no proof of such and again you'll likely ignore me pointing this out
It is quite true. Automakers have been sued for many times the vehicle operated more like a deadly weapon, than a car.
No one will sue the manufacturer for their product doing something it was designed to do. No one is suing Dewalt because their drill made a hole when that's what it was designed to do.
No one but gun makers are selling a consumer product designed to be deadly, in a massive fashion.
And to own a gun in the US you must pass a background check, and cannot be: a felon, a fugitive from justice, on any controlled substance, dishonorably discharged, under any restraining order,...
To operate a car in the US, you must be licensed, carrying insurance, and your license is subject to revocation from numerous violations or health reasons.
And to own a gun in the US you must pass a background check, and cannot be: a felon, a fugitive from justice, on any controlled substance, dishonorably discharged, under any restraining order, convicted of domestic violence, illegal alien, renouncer of US citizenship, and any other state level restrictions.
Certainly looks like there's more restrictions/consumer protections on guns than a vehicle...
It is quite true. Automakers have been sued for many times the vehicle operated more like a deadly weapon, than a car.
Source? And again what does that have to do with a car designed to kill that kills?
No one but gun makers are selling a consumer product designed to be deadly, in a massive fashion.
So your circular logic is that no one will sue Dewalt for making a drill that makes holes, but they should sue gun manufacturers for making a gun that does exactly what they said it would?
I don't see how gun manufacturers are marketing their products as being deadly? Unfortunately, Remington's website is down currently, so I had to look at a cached version. There's just a row of...
I don't see how gun manufacturers are marketing their products as being deadly? Unfortunately, Remington's website is down currently, so I had to look at a cached version. There's just a row of guns and other products, and a few more pages of other products and such.
I do agree that if any manufacturer advertises how deadly their products are, that would be grounds to sue them into the ground.
This seems to have some pictures of the ads in question, but I have no clue as to the validity of the images as it seems like a biased source. The images do seem to represent the type of gun used...
This seems to have some pictures of the ads in question, but I have no clue as to the validity of the images as it seems like a biased source. The images do seem to represent the type of gun used in Sandy Hook, and a google images search shows several images with the similar phrases "Forces of opposition, bow down" and "Consider your man card reissued".
Oh yeah, those ads definitely aren't a good look for them. I personally don't feel that the ads go that far, but that's for the courts to decide.
Oh yeah, those ads definitely aren't a good look for them.
"[...] marketed, advertised and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies[...]"
I personally don't feel that the ads go that far, but that's for the courts to decide.
It's such a stretch, and would lead to such a massive chilling effect on advertising in general, that I can't see it happening. I think they're scummy ads, but they don't seem irresponsible to the...
It's such a stretch, and would lead to such a massive chilling effect on advertising in general, that I can't see it happening. I think they're scummy ads, but they don't seem irresponsible to the point of inciting Sandy fucking Hook.
If the gun is marketed at a white supremacist rally, for "self defense", who do you think the target is? Advertising isnt just the black and white text. Context and imagery has to be included.
If the gun is marketed at a white supremacist rally, for "self defense", who do you think the target is?
Advertising isnt just the black and white text. Context and imagery has to be included.
Want to point me toward the gun marketing that influenced that psychopath to shoot up a black church full of kids? Even better if you can point me at the marketing at the white supremacist rally....
Want to point me toward the gun marketing that influenced that psychopath to shoot up a black church full of kids?
Even better if you can point me at the marketing at the white supremacist rally.
Perhaps you can also find the marketing that Dodge put out for the Challenger that shows it was the perfect vehicle to run over people at a counter protest in Charlottesville.
I already have. Who is your typical conservative these days? There isn't. That's why nobody is suing Dodge.
Want to point me toward the gun marketing that influenced that psychopath to shoot up a black church full of kids?
I already have.
Even better if you can point me at the marketing at the white supremacist rally.
Who is your typical conservative these days?
Perhaps you can also find the marketing that Dodge put out for the Challenger that shows it was the perfect vehicle to run over people at a counter protest in Charlottesville.
That's funny, because looking at your profile I see no such ad. I'll let you know after Thanksgiving, as I don't know any yet, but I'm sure someone in the family will turn out to be one. So if...
I already have.
That's funny, because looking at your profile I see no such ad.
Who is your typical conservative these days?
I'll let you know after Thanksgiving, as I don't know any yet, but I'm sure someone in the family will turn out to be one.
There isn't. That's why nobody is suing Dodge.
So if there isn't any marketing that says you should drive through protesters then the likelihood of suing Dodge is low. So since there's no marketing from gun manufacturers saying you should shoot up a school, why are they being sued?
This topic is just the two of you bickering unproductively in two different threads now. You can PM each other if you want to continue it, because I'm going to lock it. @ubergeek
This topic is just the two of you bickering unproductively in two different threads now. You can PM each other if you want to continue it, because I'm going to lock it. @ubergeek
I keep seeing this talking point, and I don't get it. Toyota had a pretty big class action suit for their electronic accelerators glitching out and sending cars speeding out of control. We do sue...
I don't sue the car maker when I get in an accident in their vehicle.
I keep seeing this talking point, and I don't get it. Toyota had a pretty big class action suit for their electronic accelerators glitching out and sending cars speeding out of control. We do sue car makers when we get in accidents in their vehicles all the time, and even win occasionally. Nader's book made a pretty big splash with I think it was the Corsair's? split differential that tended to cause the car to do a weird nose dive because they cheaped out and didn't include a sway bar. Working from memory here, bear with me.
When cars hurt people, car companies get sued.
If the suit is meritless, Remington will probably win? I'm sure they can afford decent lawyers. They'll be alright.
The analogy doesn't work here because the car manufacturers are required to implement safety features that meet a certain standard. When a car is poorly engineered, i.e. malfunctions, then it is...
The analogy doesn't work here because the car manufacturers are required to implement safety features that meet a certain standard. When a car is poorly engineered, i.e. malfunctions, then it is the manufacturers fault.
If a gun is used to kill, regardless of target, then it is still functioning.
A more accurate analogy is if the car was used to intentionally kill a person (or a group of people).
And, if the car was designed to intentionally kill people, or a group of people, and marketed to consumers, the OEM would be sued into oblivion if it was used in such a way.
And, if the car was designed to intentionally kill people, or a group of people, and marketed to consumers, the OEM would be sued into oblivion if it was used in such a way.
My "sane world" includes a lot of changes that I should have described. It's a world where the US government isn't one of the biggest consumers of weapons. The government should be holding itself...
My "sane world" includes a lot of changes that I should have described. It's a world where the US government isn't one of the biggest consumers of weapons.
The government should be holding itself accountable for its military-industrial complex.
An interesting workaround they’ve found. Good for them.
It's a shame that they need one. In a sane world the government would be the one going after the gun manufacturers.
But Why? I still don't understand why gun manufacturers should be held accountable for what happens with their guns after they have been sold. They don't have any control over what happens with the guns after they get sold. I don't sue the car maker when I get in an accident in their vehicle.
Because if you market an item purposefully deadly, you are held to a higher liability standard.
If a corporation marketed rat poison as a perfect thing to put in teacher's coffee, and packaged in what looks like school supplies, we'd sure as fuck would be suing them out of business.
Gun makers have a special protection carved out. This isnt right.
If your vehicle was purposefully designed to get into accidents, and marketed as such, you sure as hell would be suing them.
But the weapons weren't marketed as the perfect thing for a school shooting or any mass shooting. They are marketed as something to be used against enemies/threats and I've yet to see anything in this case where the shooter's motive was because the victims were a threat or an enemy. Can a gun be used in a mass shooting? Yes. Is the manufacturer telling you to do so? No. (Not that I've seen or interpret as such, but this will ultimately be up to the courts.) Can rat poison be used to kill a teacher? Yes. Is the manufacturer saying to do so? No. Not even in an incredibly vague advertisement, by the standards of this conversation, simply stating it kills.
Why would someone sue if my vehicle was designed and marketed to do something and it did that thing?
100% agreed.
Notice no ad for rat poison these days is marketed as "Safe to handle" anymore?
Which has what to do with the overall points made?
When rat poison was sold as "safe to handle", there almost were assuredly suits, and then consumer regulations prohibiting that sort of labeling.
Kinda like labeling guns as "safe"... They aren't. They are designed to kill, and should be held to a higher consumer product safety standard. And they are not. They are in fact held to a lower consumer product safety standard.
Guns are marketed as "guns for warfare, in your hands" and "something to have, when there's something to kill". And protected when they do just that. Until now.
Based on what metrics?
Could be the tiny print giving me a headache, but I'm not seeing where they're advertised as such in the links below nor when googled.
Well, we could base it in the metric that guns are designed to kill, and gun deaths annually exceed that of cars?
Choose a better one as it's very nearly 1:1 Cars:Guns.
I'm still awaiting details on how they're held to lower consumer product safety standards and wondering if you're just going to ignore the impossible to find quoted marketing...
Ok, they're 1:1. Ignoring for a moment there are far more cars in the US than guns, and that each car is operated for far more hours per person, per year than guns are...
Cars don't have special consumer liability protections carved out for them. If an auto maker designed a car to kill people, and it killed people they would be sued to bankruptcy.
Per capita is all that matters, and they're both the same. Cars don't have any requirements for purchase other than funds. While firearms require at the very least background checks and at the higher ends licensing and permission from local/state governments for ownership.
Again you say this and again you can provide no proof of such and again you'll likely ignore me pointing this out:
No one will sue the manufacturer for their product doing something it was designed to do. No one is suing Dewalt because their drill made a hole when that's what it was designed to do.
To operate a car in the US, you must be licensed, carrying insurance, and your license is subject to revocation from numerous violations or health reasons.
It is quite true. Automakers have been sued for many times the vehicle operated more like a deadly weapon, than a car.
No one but gun makers are selling a consumer product designed to be deadly, in a massive fashion.
And to own a gun in the US you must pass a background check, and cannot be: a felon, a fugitive from justice, on any controlled substance, dishonorably discharged, under any restraining order, convicted of domestic violence, illegal alien, renouncer of US citizenship, and any other state level restrictions.
Certainly looks like there's more restrictions/consumer protections on guns than a vehicle...
Source? And again what does that have to do with a car designed to kill that kills?
So your circular logic is that no one will sue Dewalt for making a drill that makes holes, but they should sue gun manufacturers for making a gun that does exactly what they said it would?
I don't see how gun manufacturers are marketing their products as being deadly? Unfortunately, Remington's website is down currently, so I had to look at a cached version. There's just a row of guns and other products, and a few more pages of other products and such.
I do agree that if any manufacturer advertises how deadly their products are, that would be grounds to sue them into the ground.
This seems to have some pictures of the ads in question, but I have no clue as to the validity of the images as it seems like a biased source. The images do seem to represent the type of gun used in Sandy Hook, and a google images search shows several images with the similar phrases "Forces of opposition, bow down" and "Consider your man card reissued".
https://www.anneofcarversville.com/new/2019/3/16/0m5j74l9ucieucuwm4zptdoeuodo6h
ALSO, after looking at that "man card" as for a bit, I realized why it looked so familiar
https://theorion.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screenshot_20161101-134751.png
Oh yeah, those ads definitely aren't a good look for them.
I personally don't feel that the ads go that far, but that's for the courts to decide.
It's such a stretch, and would lead to such a massive chilling effect on advertising in general, that I can't see it happening. I think they're scummy ads, but they don't seem irresponsible to the point of inciting Sandy fucking Hook.
We can only hope.
You mean like this https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTvdO-Y_XMzUAPcnAUrqUUuumK82g:1573666950781&q=Gun+ads&tbm=isch&source=hp&fir=ndTNKmMv6IfaVM%253A%252CoprgVqPdP-rf-M%252C_%253BJcj0iQymHLLAVM%253A%252CuJaq3jK20vbzCM%252C_%253BW71UBbCSbprQsM%253A%252CueE14riB-qfPJM%252C_%253Bhy4EAlHO4ogxaM%253A%252C4kabQEdOfSpCYM%252C_%253BLdAi5XAyYvcc8M%253A%252CgBW_pkp1czgH_M%252C_%253BbV5D-Y-5BtqmxM%253A%252C9o7a7FXi7peWFM%252C_%253BnSQ8SWeHYvulEM%253A%252CuJaq3jK20vbzCM%252C_%253B3uWYZfWY355thM%253A%252CueE14riB-qfPJM%252C_%253BL-lM-Jkv-0MAfM%253A%252CuJaq3jK20vbzCM%252C_%253B8r7jUidPpUqS6M%253A%252C4kabQEdOfSpCYM%252C_%253Bm7vOzpC0TnaKtM%253A%252C-0YxNUjFP-28WM%252C_%253BtCCYB7CLEVaM-M%253A%252CW0k1tV5sSu97fM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kT5OUvpheNLGzJGJRZcjxxamrmSJw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHheKc3uflAhUqhOAKHZZfDooQ7Al6BAgDEEg&biw=414&bih=756
Did you miss the one for "a combat file for civilians", or "Here's your man card"?
If the gun is marketed at a white supremacist rally, for "self defense", who do you think the target is?
Advertising isnt just the black and white text. Context and imagery has to be included.
Not the children you seem to be implying it is. Any evidence it was advertised at a white supremacist rally?
Really? The kids at a predominantly black church were targets for a person who believed they were self-defending themselves from white-genocide?
https://bowdoinorient.com/2018/02/23/white-supremacy-fuels-american-gun-violence/
Want to point me toward the gun marketing that influenced that psychopath to shoot up a black church full of kids?
Even better if you can point me at the marketing at the white supremacist rally.
Perhaps you can also find the marketing that Dodge put out for the Challenger that shows it was the perfect vehicle to run over people at a counter protest in Charlottesville.
I already have.
Who is your typical conservative these days?
There isn't. That's why nobody is suing Dodge.
That's funny, because looking at your profile I see no such ad.
I'll let you know after Thanksgiving, as I don't know any yet, but I'm sure someone in the family will turn out to be one.
So if there isn't any marketing that says you should drive through protesters then the likelihood of suing Dodge is low. So since there's no marketing from gun manufacturers saying you should shoot up a school, why are they being sued?
This topic is just the two of you bickering unproductively in two different threads now. You can PM each other if you want to continue it, because I'm going to lock it. @ubergeek
Here is an example https://www.google.com/search?q=Gun+ads&tbm=isch#imgrc=P-1L67c2AjfABM
I keep seeing this talking point, and I don't get it. Toyota had a pretty big class action suit for their electronic accelerators glitching out and sending cars speeding out of control. We do sue car makers when we get in accidents in their vehicles all the time, and even win occasionally. Nader's book made a pretty big splash with I think it was the Corsair's? split differential that tended to cause the car to do a weird nose dive because they cheaped out and didn't include a sway bar. Working from memory here, bear with me.
When cars hurt people, car companies get sued.
If the suit is meritless, Remington will probably win? I'm sure they can afford decent lawyers. They'll be alright.
The analogy doesn't work here because the car manufacturers are required to implement safety features that meet a certain standard. When a car is poorly engineered, i.e. malfunctions, then it is the manufacturers fault.
If a gun is used to kill, regardless of target, then it is still functioning.
A more accurate analogy is if the car was used to intentionally kill a person (or a group of people).
And, if the car was designed to intentionally kill people, or a group of people, and marketed to consumers, the OEM would be sued into oblivion if it was used in such a way.
My "sane world" includes a lot of changes that I should have described. It's a world where the US government isn't one of the biggest consumers of weapons.
The government should be holding itself accountable for its military-industrial complex.
Right. Hopefully this will put some fear into gun manufacturers. Money is the only thing that will matter to them, sadly.