Current Events > The gun industry is now ended.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xwjdp/supreme-court-will-let-sandy-hook-parents-sue-remington-for-the-deaths-of-their-children

---

SCOTUS declining to participate is not ruling in favor of; that's quite deceptive.

They'll never win any of the suits, and gun makers will just change their "marketing."
---

Oh boy

---

curious to learn why you're determined to say they'll never win anything?
---

They can sue for whatever they want, they probably are not gonna win. Isn't there already court precedent of gun manufacturers winning these kinds of lawsuits?

---

why are they suing the manufacturer instead of the vendor
---

Sounds like they have to prove that Remington was actively advertising their guns to be used in human assaults/mass shootings.

---

There's always H&K and Taurus.

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Sounds like they have to prove that Remington was actively advertising their guns to be used in human assaults/mass shootings.

That's what they are going for. I just, as it happens, heard a piece on this on a local NPR Station.


---

TheMikh posted...

why are they suing the manufacturer instead of the vendor

Technically they aren't allowed to sue either since suing them for crimes committed by individuals was barred by congress. But the case at hand is that Remington somehow promoted the use of their weapons to shoot up a school, so a judge decided to let the suit go forward.
---

MC_BatCommander posted...

They can sue for whatever they want, they probably are not gonna win.

But John Cusack beat the gun industry in Runaway Jury...
---

Reminds me of that story where a couple sued a gun retailer because they wanted more people to pay and they got their ass beat in court. Hopefully that's the case here.

---

Irony posted...

Reminds me of that story where a couple sued a gun retailer because they wanted more people to pay and they got their ass beat in court. Hopefully that's the case here.

N'ahhh, The arms industry has been making bank for about 100 years. With zero regard for the fallout.
They need to be put in check. Also, fuck all of their lobbyists, and bought for politicians.
What they are fighting for has nothing to do with protecting freedom, or kill varmints back on the farm.

---

MC_BatCommander posted...

They can sue for whatever they want, they probably are not gonna win. Isn't there already court precedent of gun manufacturers winning these kinds of lawsuits?

The odds are not in their favor this time.

---

I do feel we should hold gun manufactors and gun sellers responble for the advertising they do. NRA also loves to hint at their members to be ready to shoot liberals without directly saying such.

---

Tmaster148 posted...

I do feel we should hold gun manufactors and gun sellers responble for the advertising they do. NRA also loves to hint at their members to be ready to shoot liberals without directly saying such.

Hell Trump did it as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-second-amendment/index.html

---

TheMikh posted...

why are they suing the manufacturer instead of the vendor

Or the school
---

S&W man myself.

---

Medzzz posted...

TheMikh posted...

why are they suing the manufacturer instead of the vendor

Or the school

The school didn't pay video game companies to put representations of itself in video games

Mr Hangman posted...

That's what I'm thinking. It's one thing to say they don't have some preemptive immunity from a law suit, another for them to actually be sued and lose. It seems utterly absurd to me that you could hold manufacturers responsible for this, but whether a suit is stopped at a preliminary stage is more of a technical legal process question.

Has anyone fed Joe Camel or Spuds MacKenzie lately?
They must be hungry by now.

The Gun Industry has to face it, people are fed up.
At some point the back lash will hit them.
They had a good enough run.
But the people have had enough.

I hope these Sandy Hook folks are just the tip of the iceberg.
Backing off from gun culture will be better for America, in the long run.
As it is, it's not bringing us safety or peace.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

What a bunch of useless fluff. Do you have any actual reasoning for why they should be held liable?

Yeah I want to hear people's argument on this. They certainly aren't advertising them to be used in school shootings (or other crimes, I assume). You can't sue people for using a product illegally if it wasn't advertised to be used that way.

It also wouldn't make sense to advertise to criminals. They represent such a small portion of gun owners.

---

This smacks of an out-of-court settlement. Pay $200M under the table, move on with life.

---

as long as there are people there will be war. As long as there is war the gun industry will be fine.

Humanity is too idiotic
---

I'd love to see those ads where they promoted using their guns to commit mass shootings.
---

They're not winning the lawsuit unless there was an illegal sale or a product malfunction.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

I do feel we should hold gun manufactors and gun sellers responble for the advertising they do.

Can you link these terrible advertisements?
---

ssjevot posted...

Yeah I want to hear people's argument on this. They certainly aren't advertising them to be used in school shootings (or other crimes, I assume). You can't sue people for using a product illegally if it wasn't advertised to be used that way.

It also wouldn't make sense to advertise to criminals. They represent such a small portion of gun owners.

Well the fact that politicians are so bought and sold by the industry that congress isn't even allowed the funds to look into gun violence is a pretty good start.

---

Yeah, I totally remember the Remington ad in Guns and Ammo that had this totally badass kid in a trench coat with an AR-15 murdering his classmates.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

That's a legitimate complaint, and also an entirely separate issue that has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturer liability.

The put blinders on horses for a reason you know?
No one want's to be startled by facts.

---

It's a standard gun control technique, dating back to the days before the PLCAA when their stated goal was to bankrupt gun manufacturers by having cities file half billion dollar lawsuits against them en masse, blaming them for all gun violence. As a bonus when they inevitably lose and have to pay court fees they can whine about the evil gun industry forcing them into bankruptcy (see the Lucky Gunner lawsuit in Colorado).
---

The govt is stupid. If they lose the case guess who buys Remington guns. The us govt so Remington will make that money back by charging the difference to the govt for their guns

The gun lobby is one of the most entitled, dangerous, and Powerful lobbies is in the country. Let them get sued for this, it's fine.

---

The Admiral posted...

I'd love to see those ads where they promoted using their guns to commit mass shootings.

What makes the lawsuit even more ridiculous is that shooter didn't buy the gun. It was his mom's gun, he murdered her and stole it.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

What makes the lawsuit even more ridiculous is that shooter didn't buy the gun. It was his mom's gun, he murdered her and stole it.

What a fabulous optic.
Clearly a scene of well adjusted individuals.

---

Fuck.

---

The people suing arent going to get shit and this is gonna get shut down before it gets serious. The only one thats going to come out on top is the greedy lawyers that keep pushing to go ahead with this.
---

SiO4 posted...

ssjevot posted...

Yeah I want to hear people's argument on this. They certainly aren't advertising them to be used in school shootings (or other crimes, I assume). You can't sue people for using a product illegally if it wasn't advertised to be used that way.

It also wouldn't make sense to advertise to criminals. They represent such a small portion of gun owners.

Well the fact that politicians are so bought and sold by the industry that congress isn't even allowed the funds to look into gun violence is a pretty good start.

People do look into gun violence, the problem is people with leftist agendas dont like the results, turns out not a lot of white conservatives shoot up black teens in Chicago or Baltimore, so they screech about lobbyists and biased studies, etc.
---

AlephZero posted...

It's a standard gun control technique, dating back to the days before the PLCAA when their stated goal was to bankrupt gun manufacturers by having cities file half billion dollar lawsuits against them en masse, blaming them for all gun violence. As a bonus when they inevitably lose and have to pay court fees they can whine about the evil gun industry forcing them into bankruptcy (see the Lucky Gunner lawsuit in Colorado).

It looks like the "Lucky Gunner" lawsuit was ridiculous though because it was an online retailer that didn't do (maybe wasn't legally required to?) any sort of background check into the Aurora shooter before just selling him a bunch of shit.

And "Lucky Gunner" even said they weren't going to use the money for court fees, they were just going to donate it to gun rights groups...


---

Families suing gun manufacturers is people who haven't been shot suing people who didn't shoot anyone. If your child dies in a car wreck, should you sue Toyota because they built the car?

This is the exact OPPOSITE direction we need to go in our already over litigious culture.
---

SH_expert44 posted...

The people suing arent going to get shit and this is gonna get shut down before it gets serious. The only one thats going to come out on top is the greedy lawyers that keep pushing to go ahead with this.

Why would it? They're specifically going after Remington on something that Congress decided would still be illegal when they passed all the firearm manufacturer liability-shielding laws a decade and a half ago.

And everyone joking "Oh yeah lemme just find the ad where they promoted school shootings" - the argument is that Remington advertised the Bushmaster as a civilian firearm that is really good at killing people, which would be a violation of State law and not protected under the laws Congress passed.
---

Fuparulez posted...

Families suing gun manufacturers is people who haven't been shot suing people who didn't shoot anyone. If your child dies in a car wreck, should you sue Toyota because they built the car?

This is the exact OPPOSITE direction we need to go in our already over litigious culture.

This is a terrible example, because you absolutely would if there was evidence Toyota was negligent in its design or quality control and that's why your kid was dead.

How the fuck do you think shit like this happens?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/200911_Toyota_vehicle_recalls

But that's not even a valid comparison to this case, because the lawsuit isn't about defects in manufacturing or qc issues.
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Sounds like they have to prove that Remington was actively advertising their guns to be used in human assaults/mass shootings.

They do, and I would LOVE to see the ad they claim does that.
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

The gun lobby is one of the most entitled, dangerous, and Powerful lobbies is in the country. Let them get sued for this, it's fine.

It's spelled SiO4 posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Has anyone fed Joe Camel or Spuds MacKenzie lately?
They must be hungry by now.

The Gun Industry has to face it, people are fed up.
At some point the back lash will hit them.
They had a good enough run.
But the people have had enough.

I hope these Sandy Hook folks are just the tip of the iceberg.
Backing off from gun culture will be better for America, in the long run.
As it is, it's not bringing us safety or peace.

Your comparison would be apt, if you could point to a single ad by gun manufacturers specifically targeting mass shooters.
---

If a company manufactures and makes money off of products that are routinely used to kill people, then yeah they should account for that. If, on top of that, they pay money to advertise their killing products to minors, then yeah, they should account for that, too.

When cars killed tons and tons of people, it was deemed a public health issue and money went into research on how to make them safer and regulate them efficiently. As a result, there's tons of valuable outcomes such as seatbelts, airbags, knowledge about how to plan roads so they don't encourage speeding, drunk driving regulations, and so on. What didn't happen was cars getting banned.

Guns though? Nah let's block any such attempt, because in the end the decision makers make more money by going against the interest of the majority here.
---

scar the 1 posted...

If a company manufactures and makes money off of products that are routinely used to kill people, then yeah they should account for that. If, on top of that, they pay money to advertise their killing products to minors, then yeah, they should account for that, too.

When cars killed tons and tons of people, it was deemed a public health issue and money went into research on how to make them safer and regulate them efficiently. As a result, there's tons of valuable outcomes such as seatbelts, airbags, knowledge about how to plan roads so they don't encourage speeding, drunk driving regulations, and so on. What didn't happen was cars getting banned.

Guns though? Nah let's block any such attempt, because in the end the decision makers make more money by going against the interest of the majority here.

The vast majority of people in the US want guns. We know this because the cast majority of people in the US own guns.
---