WaPo: The Supreme Court’s Sandy Hook ruling is a welcome victory for gun violence victims

Has GM misrepresented the security of the trucks?

 

This isn’t about ownership it is about a gun manufacturer misrepresenting his wares and yes if those ads also encourage poor behaviour then they should be held accountable

Ps Gig pharma is on the slow grind to having its arse sued off over marketing

 

I have yet to see the advertisement everyone keeps referring to in this case but I highly doubt that Remington suggested young men take firearms out and shoot their fellow citizens.

 

How would advertisements by a firearms manufacturer encourage poor behavior with a legal product, unless they said manufacturer is encouraging illegal behavior, such as outright murder?

 

How precisely does Remington misrepresent their products or encourage poor behavior? Every firearm sold by Remington over the last 50 years is accompanied by owners manuals that are full of warnings, safe handling instructions and the fundamentals of firearm safety.
Provide examples of your assertion. You are guessing when you make such statements.
The are fewer venues for advertising firearms than there are for alcohol, and most of those are in media forms that are specific to the industry.
So, as to your assertion... provide examples.

 

Don't forget about the GM ambulance that cage equipped to save a life and got the patient to the hospital on time. What about law enforcement using a Remington product to save a victim from a bad guy using a S&W product. We will only end up with no companies willing to risk being in business. The harm far outweighs any potential good people imagine.

 

Can you give us an example of an ad that encourages poor behavior?

 

That request has been made. The reason there is no response is if there are such examples, they are so extremely rare that they aren’t easily found and don’t represent common practice as alleged.

It’s been my experience few gun owners will tolerate bad or unsafe behavior from anyone and often the first to call it out, as more often than not they have been drilled continually on gun safety and are aware of the demands for responsibility. Lot of peer education out there.

 

Very true. I learned gun safety at 9 years old:

1. There is no such thing as an unloaded gun.
2. Where the bullet terminates is 100% my responsibility.

No one ever told me I could blame anything on the gun or the manufacturer.

 

"Recklessly marketing"?
I've never seen anything of the kind. Never an ad that said that if you know nothing about guns, you need to own one, or any such thing. Actually sounds like what a lawyer would say when he is looking around for someone to sue, and naturally seeks to place blame on whomever has money or insurance to provide it- in which case, it is surely their fault. They never say- my client acted stupidly or committed criminal acts and is responsible for what they have done... because there is no profit in that. General motors is not responsible for the fact a drunk driver was in a Chevy- because they were not controlling the car. We never arrest the car and let the drunk driver go free.

Many of the arguments today are based on somebody trying to shift responsibility- for the purpose of Profit. This has become an industry, known as "Tort Law", where if someone is injured or might have been (the lawyer will convince them they have been) then you are entitled to someone else's money- and the lawyer is entitled to at least half of that. This is why the TV is loaded with lawyers trying to convince people they are entitled, why the cost of liability insurance is driving the costs of products particularly in areas where responsibility is arguable and pockets are deep- mostly meaning the medical field.

People are harmed with knives, hammers, saws and all kinds of devices, and both user and bystander may be included. Lawyers even approach some of this on the basis that the party they are suing should have known the person who bought their product was an incompetent idiot, and refused to sell them the tool.

Guns are inherently hazardous- but so are knives and things like power tools. None of them are dangerous- meaning they would cause you or anyone harm without your somehow being involved, as if they were malicious. They become dangerous when in the hands of a careless person or a criminal. It is not the seller's or manufacturers duty to make sure you are not an idiot, it is the job of the buyer. It is also the job of the regulatory agency that is supposed to be doing background checks but can't keep track of psychologically unbalanced and risky people because that would conflict with medical privacy. Gun dealers too are pretty meticulous in following the procedures too, and sometimes just refusing to sell on the basis of their instinct that the person doesn't seem responsible or legit.

So long as you hold others responsible for the consequences of your own decisions, you have no power to change anything. The decisions to misuse a firearm are made by the user of the firearm, the manufacturer has absolutely no control over it. It's a people issue- not one of the device or manufacturer. Guns do not kill people- People kill people. Guns are inanimate objects with no malice of any kind; they do not make the choice to do harm- the person who wishes to do harm often chooses a gun, but then they may also choose a knife, a club, a car or any of the thousands of things which become weapons when such a person decides to use them that way.

Fix the people problem and you have no gun problem. Failing to grasp that the true common denominator is people- being distracted by the greed for money promoted by lawyers- only keeps us from taking action on the real causes.