GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[BigMark]

Cray cray.

[BigMark]

[HairOfTheDog]

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Suit against Remington to Move Forward

I have concerns about holding product manufacturers responsible when people choose to misuse products and cause injury or death with them.

But, in this case, I'm glad the Supreme Court rejected Remington's appeal, thereby allowing the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook to move forward with their lawsuit against the AR-15 manufacturer in a lower Connecticut court.

Remington's marketing/promotion was irresponsible and glorified the use of the AR-15 by single civilians with perceived scores to settle, in my opinion.

So, I think the merits of the case against Remington should be decided by a jury of the surviving victims' peers.

(continued)

[HairOfTheDog]

Here are some details regarding the case.

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker and promoter of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The court opted not to hear the gun-maker's appeal, in a decision that was announced Tuesday morning. The justices did not include any comment about the case, Remington Arms Co v. Soto, as they turned it away.

Remington contends the case "presents a nationally important question" about U.S. gun laws — namely, how to interpret the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants broad immunity to gun-makers and dealers from prosecution over crimes committed with their products.

Remington manufactured the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that Adam Lanza used on Dec. 14, 2012, to kill 20 first-graders and six adults at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The families first filed their lawsuit in December 2014, saying the Bushmaster rifle never should have been sold to the public because it is a military-style weapon. They accuse Remington of violating Connecticut's unfair trade practices law when it "knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings."

The 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from liability has several exceptions — including one allowing lawsuits against a gun-maker or seller that knowingly violates state or federal laws governing how a product is sold or marketed.

(continued)

[HairOfTheDog]

One of the plaintiffs in the case is David Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son, Ben, was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. Wheeler told NPR earlier this year that to him, the lawsuit is about responsibility. 

And he recalled one of Remington's ads for a gun that carried the tagline, "Consider your man card reissued." "What kind of society allows manhood to be defined in this way?" Wheeler asked.

The AR-15 is a close relative of the Colt company's M16 automatic rifle used by the U.S. military. Since Colt's patents for the original AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other manufacturers have been making guns based on similar designs.

In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.'  

They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."


Full piece / details:  https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920...to-proceed

[Maggot]

Good job by law abiding gun carriers in Texas last week, they took down a gunman in 6 seconds that went into a church trying to kill parishioners, he probably thought it would be a "soft" target.

[Carsman]

Good job by law abiding gun carriers in Texas last week, they took down a gunman in 6 seconds that went into a church trying to kill parishioners, he probably thought it would be a "soft" target.

Looks like there's something to be said for "packing", it's because several of the potential victims there were in fact "packing", that the shooter didn't get to create another mass massacre!

[BigMark]

Was the first victim drawing a pistol?

[HairOfTheDog]

3-D Firearm Blueprints On-Line

Several years ago, some posters upthread warned that 'ghost guns' would become a problem, and last October a neo-Nazi in Germany used one to kill two people in Germany.  

With technological advances and internet access increasing worldwide, the potential for extremists and terrorists to make and use the untraceable guns is gaining more concern and attention from law enforcement.

Here in the U.S. the Attorney Generals in 20 states and DC have banded together to prevent the Trump Administration from moving forward with plans to legalize the internet publication of the blueprints.  I hope they win their lawsuit.

(continued)

[HairOfTheDog]

Snip:

Attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging a federal regulation that could allow blueprints for making guns on 3D printers to be posted on the internet.

New York Attorney General Tish James, who helped lead the coalition of state attorneys general, argued that posting the blueprints would allow anyone to go online and use the downloadable files to create unregistered and untraceable assault-style weapons that could be difficult to detect.

Washington state's attorney general Bob Ferguson said a previous multi-state lawsuit led a federal judge last year to strike down the administration's earlier attempt to allow the files to be distributed.

For years, law enforcement officials have been trying to draw attention to the dangers posed by the so-called ghost guns, which contain no registration numbers that could be used to trace them.

A federal judge in November blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to allow the files to be released online, arguing that the government had violated the law on procedural grounds. But the administration published formal rules last Thursday that transfer the regulation of 3D-printed guns from the State Department to the Commerce Department, which could open the door to making the blueprints available online.

The state attorneys general argue the government is breaking the law and say such deregulation will "make it far easier for individuals ineligible to possess firearms under state or federal law to obtain a deadly weapon without undergoing a background check," according to the lawsuit. They also argue that the Commerce Department lacks the power to properly regulate 3D-printed guns.

"Ghost guns endanger every single one of us," James said in a statement. "While the president and his Administration know these homemade weapons pose an imminent threat, he continues to cater to the gun lobby — risking the lives of millions of Americans."

Full piece:  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/20-states-s...nted-guns/

[Maggot]

I agree that 3-d guns should not be allowed but this statement  is a stretch, really? Millions of Americans?      risking the lives of millions of Americans.         

[HairOfTheDog]

I agree that 3-d guns should not be allowed but this statement  is a stretch, really? Millions of Americans?      risking the lives of millions of Americans.         

Yeah, 'millions' sounds like a stretch, but it may be a fair estimation.

Presently, over 100,000 Americans per year are injured or killed by firearms (accidents, suicides, homicides). That's over a million in just 10 years.

If it continues to get easier and cheaper to produce untraceable ghost guns and the blue print is made legally accessible on-line, it's conceivable that millions more lives could be put a risk over the next few decades.

At any rate,  it's wrong-headed for the government to support making the blueprints available via internet.  It's not a free speech issue to me, it's a common sense public safety issue.

[Duchess]

Why, why does this even have to be an argument? Where the fuck has common sense gone in our world. We have a gun problem in this country, a very serious gun problem. Christ on a cracker.

[HairOfTheDog]

Virginia

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) lost his battle to ban the sale of assault weapons on Monday after lawmakers, including several Democrats, on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to shelve the bill for the year.

Four Democrats, most moderates, joined their Republican counterparts in rejecting the legislation, which would have banned the sale of some semiautomatic firearms, including AR-15-style rifles. It would also have banned the possession of magazines that can hold over 12 rounds.

Gun rights advocates celebrate outside the Senate committee meeting after learning the bill has been tabled

Gun control was a key issue for Democrats during last year's legislative (midterm) elections when they gained control of the General Assembly for the first time in over two decades.

(continued)

[HairOfTheDog]

The issue continues to draw heated debate in the state, with gun owners, especially in rural communities, making their voices heard.

More than 100 counties, cities and towns have also declared themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries, promising to oppose any 'unconstitutional restrictions' on guns.

In Virginia gun owners argued the governor was trying to seize commonly-owned guns and accessories from law abiding citizens. The governor said that wasn't the purpose of the bill and that banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would help prevent mass murders.

(continued)

[HairOfTheDog]

Virginia Senators have now asked the state crime commission to study the issue. That's good, in my opinion.

While this bill was tabled, lawmakers in the House and Senate have advanced other measures that are expected to be passed in the coming days, including bills that would require universal background checks on gun purchases and enable localities to ban guns in public buildings, parks and other areas. <-- those mean more to me and have a bigger impact on minimizing gun violence/fatalities than banning semi-automatics -- I hope they pass.

Other bills would limit handgun purchases to once a month and allow authorities to temporarily take guns away from anyone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. <-- also more meaningful to me; hoping they pass as well.

Ref: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...apons.html

[Duchess]

Do parents take pix like this because they feel proud? I ask because I can't think of any other reason this picture would be taken.

[BigMark]

So stupid.

[rothschild]

If the kids were black the picture would be racist.

[Duchess]

Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen a picture where black parents have lined their kids up posing with guns. Stupid white people.