Let's talk about why the gun control debate is about to change....

Why is it that gun manufacturers are immune from responsibility when others (like tobacco) aren't? In Connecticut, they were able to point to predatory marketing practices and won. And I think we'll see the very same here. When your advertisement shows a toddler holding an automatic weapon (I assume because I'm no gun expert), something is absolutely wrong. When an advert says 'Consider your Man Card reissued' showing a gun, something is absolutely wrong. Teenagers are now inundated with gun advertising through shooter video games. That is absolutely wrong.

 

using a firearm properly harms no innocents. Using tobacco as intended does. CT was a joke and that court should have been impeached. The marketing was irrelevant-the killer murdered his mother and took the guns she had. Marketing had nothing to do with his choice of weapons./

 

No court case was won. The insurance company for Remington settled out of court because Remington was already bankrupt(had been for years, and had nothing to do with this suit) and they were trying to close out the bankruptcy.

 

Quite right, they did settle. But I still see this court case as opening the doors to others with respect to marketing practices.

 

courts need to bankrupt lawyers and plaintiffs who file bogus lawsuits like that. No one markets firearms for mass murder or any unlawful purpose

 

The tobacco companies were liable because they represented that tobacco was healthy for you, didn't cause issues etc, when they had concrete knowledge to the contrary.
All they would've had to do to avoid liability is place the warning label you see. That's it.
You'll notice they continue to sell cigarettes today.

Man = Adult human male. ADULT.
Wow a photograph of a father educating their child. You think that 5 year old pulls down enough income to afford that gucci rifle? Do you think the 5yr old is the target audience of that magazine? Is this ad in teen vogue or something?
Or is it more reasonable to assume the adult male rolemodel is the target demographic, and that the 'hook' as it were is a sort of nostalgia play on "remember when your dad taught you? Teach your own child today"?

 

It opens no doors as no legal precedent was set. An insurance company did a cost benefit analysis, found that defending the case and winning would cost X and then offered X - Y where Y is whatever less than X they thought the plaintiff would accept without further time wasting.
Y might be a dollar, Y might be 10 million dollars, but as long as its taken off of X then they still come out in the black.

 

I love that pic. Reminds me of when my Dad taught me about his guns. Beautiful.

 

To my knowledge, no military has ever deployed the AR-15.

 

I haven’t read the whole thread but just started the video. The technical information he gives on the 6.8 SPC is grossly incorrect. He’s lying or bloody ignorant. Either way it makes his premise false.

Has anyone addressed these errors? I won’t bother if someone already has…

 

Almost every technical point was a false. He is either a liar or pig ignorant.

 

They've been addressed.