Sandy Hook Law Suit

[Skanky Vamp]

Video game, movies, books, music and so on can influence people to do things so I could compare to this case since they're putting the attention to advertising.

Exactly. They aren't blaming guns, they are blaming advertising. They aren't suing because he used their gun, but because their ad made the gun look appealing.

 

[Washburne]

You can ban guns and there will still be shootings.

Isn't the question if it would be less, more or equal amount of shootings/deaths if there's a ban on guns? I'm not saying there's an easy answer to that question but it's the important one, no?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Isn't the question if it would be less, more or equal amount of shootings/deaths if there's a ban on guns? I'm not saying there's an easy answer to that question but it's the important one, no?

There would be more shootings. Period. And more crime.

 

[Washburne]

There would be more shootings. Period. And more crime.

That might be true but I'm not sure it's that easy. I have no idea how countries with strict gun laws stand versus countries with less strict gun laws when it comes to certain types of crime. How are the statistics for gun deaths when you're comparing countries with different gun laws? We have people killed by guns as well and our population is was smaller but how does the percentage look? Not that it that easy to just look at the laws, other aspects play a part as well.

Do you feel your reasoning applies to the whole world or just the US?

 

[nightshade]

I think restricter regulations on buying guns would help, maybe keep it to specialist stores and make sure there are regular health checks both before buying a gun and either annually or biannually. So should a mental health problem occur the police or someone would become aware and the gun can be confiscated.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Do you feel your reasoning applies to the whole world or just the US?

Not the whole world. Case in point. Drugs are illegal, yet even here, thousands of miles away from the border they stopped a SEMI carrying thousands of pounds of marijuana and cocaine and seized two dozen assault weapons. The only reason they caught the truck was the driver left it running when he went into Walmart to use the bathroom.

If they make guns illegal that will still happen. If you are a criminal you can easily buy a gun. Regardless if they are legal or not. There are numerous reports in which armed citizens stopped violent crime.

It may sound callous but I dont really care about the school shootings. We had 10 gun related homicides over the weekend which were the result of gang/drug wars. Banning guns wont stop that from happening.
 
Also the US ranks low on the list for mass gun shootings. Other countries have more, per capita than we do.

 

[Washburne]

Maybe the whole "We got too many gun deaths, let more people have guns to stop it" would sit better with me if I lived where gun use were more common. Once again, to me it sounds like many americans feel like it's too late for the US to fix the problem and the only way to go is to look after yourself by getting something scarier. Right now it feels more like the whole nuclear bomb reasoning. "If I/we have one others won't dare to attack us." That kind of thinking scares me deeply. Maybe I'm just naive.

For the record I don't doubt that violence/crimes have been stopped due to citizens having guns or their own. I'm just still not sure the good in this case outweighs the bad.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Maybe the whole "We got too many gun deaths, let more people have guns to stop it"

Oh no, more guns wont stop it. Me having a gun will stop it from being me. It's not too late to fix the problem but it's not a popular opinion on how to stop the problem.

 

[Washburne]

Oh no, more guns wont stop it. Me having a gun will stop it from being me. It's not too late to fix the problem but it's not a popular opinion on how to stop the problem.

I'm a little confused. Please help me out. If more guns won't stop it what's the unpopular opinion on how to stop the problem?

edit: By stopping the problem I didn't mean it going away completely because that I do believe is a fantasy.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I'm a little confused. Please help me out. If more guns won't stop it what's the unpopular opinion on how to the problem?

Which problem? The mental health problem which leads to mass shootings, the terrorist problems which lead to mass shootings or the daily shootings resulting from/by crime?

That is the problem, lol, there is no ONE problem, so there is not one solution. You have a myriad of issues at hand. The issue that gets the most press (the mental health mass shootings) is the problem most americans are least worried about, in all honesty. At least those that I know and converse with.

My personal belief is that if police and teachers were not underpaid and overworked you would see less of these things. You could catch problems before they start and recognize when individuals fall through the cracks. I do not think you can begin to rectify the situation until those things are taken care of first. That's just one step though.

 

[Washburne]

Which problem? The mental health problem which leads to mass shootings, the terrorist problems which lead to mass shootings or the daily shootings resulting from/by crime?

That is the problem, lol, there is no ONE problem, so there is not one solution. You have a myriad of issues at hand. The issue that gets the most press (the mental health mass shootings) is the problem most americans are least worried about, in all honesty. At least those that I know and converse with.

I just continued on the phrasing we both have been using. You're of course right in saying there isn't one problem or one solution. That we agree on. We just have a different opinion wether stricter gun laws would help or not.

My personal belief is that if police and teachers were not underpaid and overworked you would see less of these things. You could catch problems before they start and recognize when individuals fall through the cracks. That's just one step though.

Yes I removed one sentence since I don't agree 100% with that but what I quoted I definitely agree on although I'd include more professions than those two.

I still don't see what the unpopular opinion is but maybe I took what you said the wrong way and I should let that go.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I still don't see what the unpopular opinion is but maybe I took what you said the wrong way and I should let that go.

I left out some of the unpopular opinion as it would start a big argument.

I do think 'banning' guns would do would reduce the suicide rates. That has been statistically proven.

 

[Washburne]

That's how I feel too coming from an area where no one has guns aside from hunters (which have a special permit). Is it naive? maybe? But we do have less gun related incidents

I meant naive as thinking it would work in the US considering their situation. That they would have considerably less gun violence if their culture about guns were the same as ours I'm sure of. It's not like you can ban guns and one year later everything would be as it is here. They got a long way to go and it's if a ban would help or not that needs discussing. Not that everyone agrees.


edit: How the situation in Canada? I've got the impression it's not nearly as bad where as in the US. If so, why is it like that?

 

[Blaze]

I meant naive as thinking it would work in the US considering their situation. That they would have considerably less gun violence if their culture about guns were the same as ours I'm sure of. It's not like you can ban guns and one year later everything would be as it is here. They got a long way to go and it's if a ban would help or not that needs discussing. Not that everyone agrees.


edit: How the situation in Canada? I've got the impression it's not nearly as bad where as in the US. If so, why is it like that?

I pretty much agree with all of this. At this point, a gun ban would probably cause more problems than not, it would be a tough situation to deal with. And I have absolutely no idea how things can be changed in the States without changing gun laws.

I can't speak about everywhere in Canada, but from the areas I've been too (pretty much all of Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes), you basically don't have to worry about gun violence. The general public do not carry guns, very few people even own them (and when they do they are hunting guns, not guns used to defend yourself). Yes, shootings still happen once in a while, but they are extremely rare (last year we only had 1 shooting, and it was a personal dispute). I did have a friend that went and studied in the States and she was absolutely shocked that people in the town she was in carried guns around with them. It scared her, as it would have scared me. Here I don't need a gun to defend myself, because no one else has guns either. I could not live in an environment that was not like this. I think the different is the mentality we grew up in, guns are just not part of our culture.

 

[Professor Walsh]

School shootings in the U.S. or Europe does get a lot of media coverage here. Your post, @Mr. Pole, made me aware again that this fact gives me a skewed picture of the situation in the U.S. and the situation in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. Because yes, when I think of mass shootings, U.S. is definitely high up on the list of countries that spring to mind.

 

[white avenger]

Before I begin this, please, PLEASE, know that it was not my intention to start a debate on gun control. My question was whether or not the manufacturer of a product, ANY product, should be held responsible for the knowingly illegal or unsafe use of that product by an individual.

However, since this is a subject quite close to my heart, I just can't resist...

I'm confused. How did the kid get a hold of the gun? Who sold the gun, and to whom? I do believe this to be, to an extent, a gun control issue

It's my understanding that the guns used were legally bought by his mother and locked in a gun safe. He murdered her, broke open the safe, and stole the guns. His mother never allowed him access to them, because he was undergoing psychiatric treatment.

What if a member of ISIS blamed an American gun manufacturer for the legal use of their product?

But this isn't a case of legal use. Murder and theft are crimes, and the person who did the shooting was committing an act of terrorism. The guns were bought and used by their owner for strictly legal activities, including competition target shooting and hunting (the guns stolen included a shotgun used for skeet shooting and several target pistols, as well as the Remington Bushmaster)

To me the huge difference is that if a gun is used to kill it's used the way it was designed for.

There is a difference in killing and committing murder. A hunter kills game, a home owner kills an attacker in self defense. Neither of those are crimes. Murder is the crime, and it involves willingly taking the life of another human being without justifiable provocation.

Cars are designed for transport, guns are designed to kill. So I can see where the anger towards gun manufacturers comes from, but it's a whole different matter to make them responsible

And yet, there are far more deaths attributed to automobiles every year that firearms. No one is sueing Ford or General Motors because some drunk driver runs over a pedestrian or crashes into another car. The crime is committed by the person, and they should be punished. There are laws in existence written specifically for that purpose.

I agree with the simple fact that guns are created to harm. You could argue you bought it for self-defence, but that gun is still meant to harm someone.

A firearm's function is to deliver a projectile to a target. That target could be a piece of paper, a tin can, an animal, or another human being. The only time that "harm" comes into play is when the shooter either intentionally or unintentionally delivers that projectile to a living target, and that is the responsibility of the shooter, not the firearm or the manufacturer.

With this line of thinking shouldn't they sue the mother as well - the person whose gun was used to commit said crime?

If the mother had willingly provided the shooter with the firearms involved, knowing what his intentions were, yes. Since she was murdered and her guns stolen from a locked safe, I can't see where she was at fault..

But video games won't kill anyone, guns will.

Neither guns nor video games kill. The person using the guns kill, and h, and only he,e should be held responsible.

Isn't the question if it would be less, more or equal amount of shootings/deaths if there's a ban on guns? I'm not saying there's an easy answer to that question but it's the important one, no?

Despite what the news media reports, and despite hoe spectacular these mass shootings are, gun deaths in the United States have been steadily reclining since the early '80's.

"We got too many gun deaths, let more people have guns to stop it" would sit better with me if I lived where gun use were more common. Once again, to me it sounds like many Americans feel like it's too late for the US to fix the problem and the only way to go is to look after yourself by getting something scarier

I seriously doubt that very many Americans would disagree that the problem does, indeed, exist. Where the disagreement comes is in what we feel would be the best solution that both deters the criminals and does mot penalize honest citizens or violate their Constitutional rights.

Which problem? The mental health problem which leads to mass shootings, the terrorist problems which lead to mass shootings or the daily shootings resulting from/by crime?

Or, maybe, the problem that comes from blaming an inanimate object for how it is illegally used, rather than the criminals who actually commit the crimes?

Folks, I grew up in a houseful of guns. I was taught from childhood by loving parents that it would be my fault if I misused a gun. I respect the laws of my nation, and the principals for which my country was founded. All of that leads me to believe that it is my right to own guns, and my responsibility to see that they were never unlawfully or irresponsibly used. Outside my time in military service, I have never even considered taking the life of another human being, or allowing anyone else to do so. I do, however, accept the fact that there are bad people in the world, and fully agree that they should be punished for their bad acts. What I totally disagree with is the idea that penalizing me for what someone else does is in any way not an abuse of my personal rights.

Having said all of that, I once again point out that that was not the purpose of this thread. Forget the fact that Remington manufactures and sells rifles. Assume that Remington was one of the largest producers of hammers in the world, and someone was going around smashing people's toes with a Remington hammer.

Should the people with the smashed toes be allowed to sue Remington just because someone decided to use their hammer instead of a Smith & Wesson ball bat?

 

[Washburne]

A firearm's function is to deliver a projectile to a target. That target could be a piece of paper, a tin can, an animal, or another human being..

That's one way of seeing it. I'm only guessing here of course but I doubt that the inventors of the gun were like "Hey, lets make something that can make a hole in a piece of paper or a tin can from a distance!" It's made to do harm but can be used for other things. Just like things that aren't made for making harm can be used to do so.

Of course the responsibility of how you use things, be it a gun, a car or something else is used is down to the user. But one problem is how they get a hold of these things. If a 3 year old finds a knife and starts doing bad things with it do you blame the kid or whoever made the knife available to them? Selling guns is legal and so long you sell them in a legal way and there's nothing legally wrong with it the blame isn't on the seller or manufacturer. Which is why I'm concentrating on the laws.

 

[brinkster130]

Well, Red Bull was successfully sued recently because their ads claim to "give you wings" and someone was under the impression that they would literally get wings. Red Bull lost and had to pay out millions of customers.

Though I don't see how romanticizing guns in anyway encourages one to go into a school and murder helpless children.

Also - this guy had a connection to Sandy Hook Elementary School, correct? Wouldn't that fact alone be enough to ruin a case based on gun marketing and ads?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Well, Red Bull was successfully sued recently because their ads claim to "give you wings" and someone was under the impression that they would literally get wings. Red Bull lost and had to pay out millions of customers.

That is actually an urban legend. People were wanting clicks and they made that the headline and then others reported it. He sued them on the basis that Red Bull did not provide an energy boost. He did not win either; Red Bull settled to make the thing go away versus being tied up, and down, by testing, court dates, a lawyer team and testimony.

 

[brinkster130]

That is actually an urban legend. People were wanting clicks and they made that the headline and then others reported it. He sued them on the basis that Red Bull did not provide an energy boost. He did not win either; Red Bull settled to make the thing go away versus being tied up, and down, by testing, court dates, a lawyer team and testimony.

Ah! So they settled for $13 million rather than going to court.
Red Bull Does (Not) Give You Wings