There was nothing wrong with the Bushmaster AR-15. It functioned exactly as it was promoted. There is no defect in the product. It was obtained legally. No law past or future can prevent this type of tragedy.
6
Exactly. The AR-15 has one purpose, to kill people, or innocent children. If you want a gun to defend your home? Shotgun. The AR-15 literally has it’s purpose in its name. Assault Rifle -15. But you’re probably better off just blanketing you’re home with HD Cameras. No burgulars are going near year house if they’re on camera streaming to the cloud.
10
WRONG. it was obtained illegally. he murdered the owner and stole the gun.
20
Nope, the AR in AR-15 stands for Arma-light (ARma), the first company to make them. Secondly, a shotgun is also made specifically to kill people, all guns are. Believe me, shutguns are extremely dangerous. The only question is whether or not a good guy is the one killed or a bad guy.
7
I really wish Jacinda Ardern would declare the NRA to be a terrorist organization.
30
The Protection of Commerce in Lawful Arms Act needs to be repealed. That way, the gun industry can be sued into responsibility. Hitting them in the pockets is the only way.
28
so when a drunk driver, steals a car hits a pedestrian, we sue GM?
5
The comparison of guns to cars is illegitimate. When used correctly cars do not kill people. When used as advertised an AR-15 is designed to kill many people as fast as possible. It should be a tightly regulated privilege to use such a machine, the military only allow it to be used by highly trained carefully screened people. It is not a toy or a right and should not be available to be used to enhance the toxic masculinity of a lonely young man.
7
I have never seen a gun advertisement saying a product was suitable for mass murder. The advertisements I see show the gun used at a gun range to hit paper targets. Where do you see the advertisements depicting murder?
3
"In the lawsuit, the families assert that the weapon used in the massacre was marketed in a way — with militaristic and hypermasculine slogans — that specifically reached out to troubled young men like the one who carried out the attack."
It's ironic then, that the Bushmaster was bought by the kid's MOTHER!!!
6
Actually it is a very sad story. I encourage you to read up on the mother-son relationship for greater understanding.
7
Dangerous technique. Unlike Alex Jones, gun manufacturers have good lawyers. And a good lawyer will immediately demand discovery in return. Will be interesting to see if the parents are willing to testify under oath.
1
I thought that was not nearly so clever a way to insinuate that you think Sandy Hook was a hoax as you thought it was.
27
Who thinks like this? When children are wounded and killed at school we should all be on the same side and not speculating about who the winner will be. Same goes for the safety of people partying or worshiping or standing in their front yard. The smart thing for the NRA to do would be to take part in a real solution instead of trying to hold their ground. The time for debate is long over.
15
Hopefully these families will succeed but the Shield Law is an abomination & needs to be eliminated.
13
Entirely misguided; the tobacco industry brought a parade of lab coated "scientists" to proclaim their product safe, even though their own research told them otherwise. Further, they increased nicotine levels to make their products even more addictive. The firearms industry has no equivalence; they make INTENTIONALLY deadly products. It is up to the buyer how they're used. And that's the thing: if a buyer misuses their product (against their published advice), then they have NO CONTROL over it and shouldn't be liable. It would be akin to holding Sony or Canon liable for child pornography.
5
Wrong. Stop the inaccurate analogies. Mass murder guns are a unique situation. If manufacturers choose not make every effort to ensure there acknowledge murder machines do not fall into the hands of angry boys/men; if they choose not to ensure that no one person has more than 1 mass murdering machine; if they choose to sell to dealers who regularly do not follow registration rules, then the manufacturers are absolutely liable for the death of poor children and the endless sorrow of their parents and the trauma inflicted on all who must live in a country with copious killing machines.
20
If Sony and Canon based a lot of their sales on hawking cameras and attachments designed to allow taking pix surreptitiously at the pool and across the alleyway through a curtained window, and then ran ad campaigns showing how easy it was to snap pix of little girls without their knowing, and featuring a ton of images of kids in skimpy, clinging clothing, you would have pretty much the equivalent of what Remington et al have been up to.
And yeah, that WOULD be actionable.
19
My body as a female is more heavily restricted than a gun.
28
ahh yes, the classic "women aren't allowed at schools, on airplanes, in most government buildings. also, you must pass an FBI background check to be a woman, and in some states you must wait a minimum amount of days until you can then go back and fully become a woman." you're body isn't more regulated than guns, but thankfully, both are protected by the 2nd amendment! :)
4
I will pray they succeed to mitigate this social curse.
15
So like with cigarettes now still going out the public store door only now with warning labels as big as the package its on and costing a whole lot more, so now too will Bushmasters? I suppose that will help save lives from mass killer shootings.
2
Only if you stuck pix of a roomful of shot-up first graders on the box and banned all other ads.
3
With so many mass shootings I think that all of them should considering slaying the dragon. Gunowners quote "have right to bear arms" well the rest of us should have the right to live without fear of being a victim of gun violence.
17
You do have that right. And guess what, it's protected by your right to bear arms.
2
Lanza was a troubled soul. He didn't need an AR-15 to do the harm he committed. He could have killed as many, even more, with pistols if AR's had never been invented. It is not the fault of the manufacturer, or the advertising they used, that those children died that day. Want to sue someone why not Lanza's disconnected father, who seemed content to let his son languish in his mom's basement when he clearly needed help? Or the Estate of the Mother who gave him access to her weapons?
8
So let's sue car companies for drunk driving accidents? or silverware manufacturers for obesity and diabetes. This is ridiculous. AR-15s are not "military" rifles. they are civilian rifles that fire one bullet per one pull of the trigger. There are many rifles that function EXACTLY the same and fire THE SAME BULLET OR BIGGER but use wood instead of black plastic and because they are not as "scary looking" the "assault weapon" bans in the Northeast don't cover them. these laws are only to make people who are not familiar with firearms feel good and do nothing to address school security and the prevention of more loss of life.
10
Of course they are military guns; its what the military uses. They are different than hunting rifles because of 30 round clips and often have laser sights that make killing more efficient. Signed a liberal gun owner who has fired both an AR and an AK and sees no place for them in society.
5
No, the military uses the M16, which has a similar design as the AR, the primary difference is the M16 has fully automatic capabilities, while the AR15 does not.
1
Anybody that wants an assault rifle and other high end military hardware should have them. Not only that, taxpayers should pay for them.
It is easy. Simply go to your nearest US Armed Forces Recruiting Office and join the real militia.
US Army Veteran
20
I wish them well!
And what a sad, sad comment on the state of things in the USA when the *only* way that parents can hope to get justice for dead children is via a civil suit.
Talk about an utter failure of justice! The so-called "Justice Dept" should be the one suing the gun makers for making and advertising weapons of mass killing as something average people should have. But Barr and his gang are more concerned with redacting the Mueller Report!
And imagine the terrible pain these families must be going through to have to revisit the death of their children via court filings and all the rest. Essentially another criminal act visited upon them.
18
But the kid didn't buy the gun, could not have been influenced by advertising. And the tobacco companies didn't lose their case because of advertising (e.g. Marlboro man), they lost because they had identified toxic, addictive additives to tobacco to increase the addiction of users. The dangers of smoking were known for decades, but the tobacco companies hid their knowledge not only of the chemicals they were adding, but their reason for adding.
BTW - the FDA refuses to regulate the addition of toxic substances; leaving millions with a product that is much worse for them than tobacco.
6
When one compares the number of rounds that an experienced shooter can get off using a French model 1766 musket used during the revolutionary war vs the number of rounds an average shooter can fire with a Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre, one can't help thinking that there is a need for a more common sense approach to the right to bear arms. An experienced musket shooter was able to get off 3 rounds per minute while an average shooter using the AR-15 can fire between 90 and 180 rounds. If you do the math, had the Sandy Hooker shooter used a musket, the probability of the shooter being stopped by a teacher or teachers would have been likely to occur and prevented the mass killing of the young children. History tells us that the right to bear arms was established during a time and place when the U.S. government had no professional militia and that the settlers have access to some type of rifle or gun. Today, we have a professional military force of such greatness never seen in world history with weapons so deadly that the likelihood of survival of mankind is questionable. In order to prevent another occurrence of Sandy Hook, it's time that we adopt a more common sense approach to the possession of guns and adopt rules that will make it safer for both gun enthusiast and non-gun owners. If not, we can predict a repeat of Sandy Hook, as we have seen, and the thought all of us will eventually know someone who has died from gun violence.
15
The problem with your argument is that technology has changed over the course of history and the founding fathers knew this. That's why the 1st amendment covers news papers that are printed on a modern printer, and the 2nd amendment protects modern guns. Not only that, but automatic weapons existed when the founding fathers were writing the Constitution, for example, the Belton Flintlock was a weapon that they almost bought to outfit the army with, but it was too expensive!
2
@Kyle You failed to disclose that the balls fired from a Belton Flintlock traveled a distance of between 25 - 30 yards while the distance of the French manufactured musket traveled 100 yards. The latter having such a distance determined how battles were fought. The Continental Congress did order a 100 of Belton's modified rifle but canceled the order within the same month they ordered them. In any case, your assumption that the writers of the constitution had the ability to predict advance technology in the development of guns and the creation of multiple military forces with their own weapons is somewhat of a stretch in imagination. I would guess that the writers instead after completing the Constitution and its Amendments wanted the document to be fluid, relevant, and subject to the interpretation of the times, much like the changes and interpretation that we have seen with the Christian Bible.
2
How about a Constitutional amendment that says the people have a right to not be slaughtered by guns and the government is mandated to protect and secure this right.
What are the objections?
(Note: I did not say repeal the 2nd amendment.)
6
@AJ Ok. I'll bite. Does that mean that the government can stop and frisk people-especially people from disfavored communities-- without reasonable suspicion, warrant or probable cause?
Same question about home searches. Because you know the government could really be effective in stopping murder if it could just kick down doors anytime it felt like it.
In fact given that some music, film or writing seem to justify or glorify murder we'd better let the government shut down and censor that kind of entertainment--to protect and secure the rights of people not to be slaughtered of course.
There is no limit to government authority once you start endorsing "positive rights". None.
6
@Lilo
I also did NOT say repeal the 1st and 4th amendments. Nice try though. You set up your straw men and knocked then down nicely.
Will it be a challenge to balance all rights? Absolutely. This is why we have 200+ years of case law to prove that balancing rights is a challenge. Somehow, we've managed.
5
already exists
1
The potential difference is that cigarettes were being used as intended, guns are not intended to murder people. It might work but this is a very critical difference in the two situations.
3
The gun-control movement might also study the tactics of the pro-life movement. Regardless of one's views on abortion, you have to admit those activists have been remarkably successful in chipping away at something that is theoretically a constitutionally-protected right.
We could do something similar to make guns prohibitively expensive and inconvenient, without banning them outright. Require all gun owners to undergo annual psych evaluations. Require all gun buyers to pay for expensive training. Ban guns from a 10 mile radius of any school. Introduce a lengthy 'cool down periods' before a buyer can pick up his gun.
8
@Jack
Again, the problem with "requiring" anything is that you have to get enough people to agree with you.
And you can't do that.
And that's even without the legal problems with deliberately trying to prevent people from exercising a constitutional right via cost prohibitions.
6
It's impressive that families of victims have been to act in ways that the once powerful gun control lobby has not. The ability of grassroots people to develop novel ways of addressing problems should make clear how much well-funded advocacy groups have failed to move the goalposts in decades.
5
The age of Trump. Repeat distortions and they become common knowledge. Focus on a core constituency and ignore everyone else. That’s what this gun debate has become.
AR-15 rifles are not M-16 rifles. They are not made to military specifications nor for sales to military forces. No automatic sidles nor side arms a legal for any civilian to buy without special federal licenses. The problem with gun violence is not caused by the sale of these guns to anyone. Some but only a small proportion of the gun violence is performed with these guns.
But the way this issue is discussed implies that people who buy them are highly likely to commit homicide and so banning them would relieve a great danger to the common welfare. There have been many tens of millions of these weapons sold since they were introduced in the 1960’s. Does that mean that all those tens of millions of gun owners are itching to do murder? Or is the message being sent that first we ban the ugly looking guns, and next we ban the most dangerous, and then the guns that can kill?
7
@ b fagan.
Apart from not understanding what “ handling space “ is ( our grammar and punctuation classes may well be different in Ireland ) , I deprecate and condemn without equivocation any suggestion that I am , or may be , a bot. For the record , however , yesterday was my 20th wedding anniversary and , spookily or otherwise , I met my beautiful Tyrone wife in a local establishment referred to by everyone as “ The Bot “. Coincidence or conspiracy : I think we should be told!
1
A bogus law suit aimed at going around federal law and punishing a company for manufacturing a legal product. Despite their high minded motives, I suspect the parents and lawyers are looking for a big payday.
5
The fact that gun companies continue to market and sell military grade assault rifles for civilian use while claiming immunity from liability for their "misuse" is beyond absurd. It is shameless, dishonest, and unforgivable. Since when is "assault" an acceptable American pastime? And if you aren't implicitly promoting assault (and by extension, violence and mass murder) then why put a product out there with that name and design capability? The industry has the blood of children and innocents on its hands. No shield of immunity spares them or the NRA from this ugly truth. They know it, and everyone with a conscience knows it. The tragedy is having to relive it again and again without any meaningful change or even acknowledgement on the part of those who's products and lobbying efforts have inflicted so much death and devastation. It is the very definition of insanity.
11
@Andrew, Not military grade, Automatic weapons are prohibited.
3
@Andrew, Calm down. They're nowhere near military grade. They aren't even automatics.
3
Stop with the semantics. The origin story of the AR-15 is well established, and it was designed to be a military weapon. It was lighter to carry, could fire quickly with minimal fatigue to the soldier, and the bullets could cause organ-wrecking damage to the enemy and go through both sides of a typical helmet. Yes, fully automatic rifles were readied in time for Vietnam, but that doesn’t mean the AR-15 wasn’t meant to be or that it currently isn’t a killing machine. A troubled kid was able to get off 154 rounds into the bodies of first graders in less than 5 minutes. Because that’s the killing power it was meant to have.
6
I can't see a legitimate argument for bad marketing when it was the mother who purchased the rifle, not the son who killed her and took whatever weapons he could. Had the mother purchased shotguns and glocks, the outcome with Sandy Hook would have been no less horrific.
5
I am so glad this is happening. It must be a very long journey for these parents to find a way to heal and at the same time make change happen and make someone accountable. I hope they win.
10
Why was New Zealand so quick to act while the US is languishing?
7
New Zealand and Australia have no bill of rights. They have greater sense of being dependent upon the rest of society and thus slightly less value upon individual rights that conflict with social good.
6
@Hakuna Matata ostensibly because New Zealand doesn't have an equivalent to the Second Amendment, but let's be real. Even if we didn't have a Second Amendment, Americans love of guns supersedes their love for their children. And the NRA $$$$ are louder than the cries of the bereaved to Republicans in Congress.
9
@Hakuna Matata
Must be that pesky Bill of Rights that keep getting in the way.
7
What’s wrong with capitalism and democracy when “dishonest practices and a disregard for the well-being of customers and the public” is given precedence over a safer society without military style weapons in the hands of civilians?
Thank you Sandy Hook and MSD parents for fighting for the safety of us all against the powerful gun lobby interests who have many politicians in their pockets. We need full disclosure of all gun $ and which politicians and dark $ PACs are benefiting from this blood money. I hope you win.
I remember when cigarettes were smoked everywhere, including laundromats and doctors offices. I look forward to the day when we can all walk through our neighborhoods and send our children to school or church without fear of a mass killing.
4
@Rodin's Muse You are fighting the constitution. There is no right to a safer society minus guns, because as a right we the people decided that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You solution is easy, convince enough people to amend the constitution in enough states. Barring that, you can try the courts, not the the current SCOTUS is going to be on your side.
3
So by any means necessary. The gun industry doesn't have a shield, the gun industry is not responsible for what people do with their tools. So is Ford responsible when someone decides to drive drunk? Is AB responsible when someone decides to drive drunk? If you want to play the by any means necessary game, go a head, it may work, or it may not, the by any means necessary game by default means that negotiations are over. If gun grabbers want to live in a gun free America, or an America that allows much more stingent restrictions on the ownership of firearms, amend the constitution, otherwise you have to tolerate citizens with legally owned firearms. Just as I have to tolerate HS Drop outs being able to vote.
4
Ice cream, candy, soda, fast food are marketed to make them appear harmless yet obesity kills more people than guns and cost the government billions should every over weight person be able to sue those companies of course not.. When did we lose all sense of personal accountability a gun can do nothing on its own place a gun apron a table walk away it will not rise up and commit a crime it requires a human, just as a car does not cause drunk driving. Why does the left always leave out personal accountability it's never anyone's fault anymore it's the gun, it's a disease, it's racism,it's poverty or some other factor no it is our own actions that cause these problems
4
18 days after 50 people were killed, New Zealand's legislature banned assault weapons by a vote of 119 to 1. Here, hundreds of thousands have been killed over DECADES, and NOTHING is done.
And as toxic and destructive as the NRA is, Gun Owners of America is even WORSE.
This awful situation has deteriorated over more than 50 years because of Republican complicity and Democratic cowardice.
And if, by some miracle, we ever enacted strict gun control, I'm convinced that there would be--at least--pockets of armed resistance. It could become the worst fighting since the Civil War.
Good Lord, how this great country has fallen. Civilizations are like sand on the beach. They wash in...and out. It takes WORK to stay on top. It's not automatic.
Here's one suggestion which so many people ignore: VOTE.
7
Go Sandy Hook parents!! The majority of us are behind you
9
Guns are now killing as many people yearly as die from tobacco. It's time the gun manufacturers pay up.
7
In civil actions, liability depends on causation. And the general rule is that causation must be sufficiently direct. If it is too attenuated, there is no liability. “Direct” and “attenuated” are imprecise terms, of course, which allows courts leeway in deciding cases.
The federal law states that if there is a shooter who has acted improperly then the gunmaker cannot be held liable, basically because its role in causation is too attenuated.
The court recently ruled that, if the gunmaker improperly advertised it can be held liable for its advertising, which is distinct from its gunmaking. So what matters is how any ads influenced Adam Lanza.
If there is no evidence that Lanza ever read a gun advertisement —which is probably the case—the victims will need a novel theory to prove that the ads caused the shooting. Bottom line, they will have to prove that the ads influenced him even if he did not read them. That will be difficult, but not impossible. That’s why skilled lawyers have been retained.
5
Heh-heh.
Wrong. As I suspect you’ll have reason to consider, after a couple of the oxycontin manufacturer’s liability cases get done.
They get caught with internal documents and studies showing increased risks that their Board’s blown off knowingly, Remington won’t be the only firearms manufacturer hurtling out of business.
1
I wish for a time (in the not too distant future) when Democrats hold a large majority in both houses, in order to revoke the protections afforded to the gun industry currently in place.
5
Why just Sandy Hook families?
Why not all families of mass shooting victims get together, all over USA , including Parkland, sue Gun companies? It is about time law makers dealt with wider population who stands up enough is enough. Second amendment is nowadays more dangerous than righteous, thus needs to be abolished.
5
Advertising weapons in videos games is wrong. A game like "Active Shooter" obviously crossed a line game developers were wrong to trespass. Although, Anton Makarevskiy might have developed that game with the specific intention of offending US sensibilities.
In general though, video games are not related to gun violence. People have been playing Grand Theft Auto for decades. I can't name a single player who ever went on a killing spree as a result. It's the same difference as blaming school shootings because kids read the Hunger Games or Catcher in the Rye. For that matter, Harry Potter is a pretty terrible role model too. How much trouble could have been avoided if Potter had just approached trusted adults first?
I'll happily celebrate Remington's discomfort. By all means, fry the degenerates. However, let's not overstate the roll of pop culture in either gun violence or mental illness. A healthy mind does not view cultural media as a call to violence even when the media is violent. You're already off the tracks if you're viewing these sources as inspiration for reality. Something is broken in the mind's critical thought process.
1
Car manufacturers advertise "performance" and Hollywood has made countless movies glorifying reckless driving, from "Bullet" to the "French Connection" to "Cannonball Run" to the "Fast and Furious" franchise (which is at—what?—17 sequels at this point). How many thousands of traffic fatalities do we have each year, most of which are caused by excessive speed and aggressive driving?
I'm sorry for the terrible tragedy these people have had to suffer. But their lawsuit is bunk.
4
This may be moot very soon, anyways. George Young, Jr. is a retired army vet who couldn't get a gun in Hawaii. To make a long story short, the 9th Circuit Court agreed with him that all American citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, not only at home (SC decision 2008), but everywhere with them. This would mean in movie theatres, shopping malls, cars, busses, trains, planes(?), offices, schools, etc.
The next stop is likely the Surpreme Court who would extend the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to carry firearms, including AR-15's, in public. Scary times.
https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/post/george-k-young-jr-continues-his-quest-open-carry-firearms
@Steve Cochrane, Not scared.
1
Something is wrong when over 90% of voters want something done to ban assault weapons and nothing gets done .. Why cant our country function in the wake of the New Zealand government after their recent tragic event (vs many Tragic events at home) .. and change laws now. That country only took a couple of weeks to change their gun laws entirely and made it fair on both sides. It just goes to show that any politician that decides how they vote based on the NRA vs the consensus of their constituents is just flat out bribery.
9
There is an important piece of information that you left out regarding the tobacco documents at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The original trove of documents was not obtained from lawsuits. Instead, a large number of documents were anonymously (Mr Butts) mailed to Professor Stan Glantz at UCSF, a cardiologist who was also an activist in smoking cessation. These documents were immediately put on the web by the UCSF Library. Lawyers and representatives of the tobacco companies tried to intimidate the librarians by stationing people outside the archive physically housing these documents. Thus, it was the actions of a cardiologist and librarians, along with Mr Butts, that opened the pathway for state attorney generals, to start litigation. As the former University Librarian at UCSF when all this took place, my information is firsthand.
13
Generations to come will thank the parents of the Sandy Hook victims in having committed themselves to go through the arduous legal process of discovery to dig out the truth behind the gun companies ads. These parents’ efforts are all the more admirable given the resistance mounted by gun companies and their red-blooded lobbyists. For the record, are these vile companies pretending that when they put out the ads they knew nothing of the lethal consequences when anyone, including a potential killer, is enabled to carry and use weapons advertised for their killing power? Such cowards are they for hiding behind the protections of the second amendment. Note to our macho politicians: No need to look around the world to seek weapons of mass destruction. They are right here aimed at our children, aided and abetted by gun companies, their lobbyists and their right-wing enablers.
6
This is also how the Southern Poverty Law Center attacked the Klan in court. They showed a direct line from all of the training materials that the Klan used to the identical actions of the Klan members. It is not enough to go after the gun manufacturers for guns used in crimes; you have to show causation, and knowledge of outcome. Their advertising/marketing of the Bushmaster is not their usual go out and hunt materials.
8
For me, what's needed is high taxes on ammunition. Prohibitively high, like for cigarettes. Guns can be stolen and manufactured illegally. Ammunition is harder. Time to tax.
You can own your gun, you're just going to pay a pretty penny to use it.
6
That grieving families must go through the arduous task of taking on the gun industry in order that no other parent or sibling has to go through the hardship and pain they've undergone says volumes about this wretched country. New Zealand had one terrorist incident and immediately moved as a nation to shut off other potential terrorists. I hate that these grieving families have to do what our Congress and government leadership have failed to do for them. Whatever others of us can do to support you and assist you, add my name.
11
Why can't America face the facts?
Or just one fact regarding the virtually unregulated use/ownership/availability of guns in society?
Just this one Fact alone:
Since 1970 MORE American civilians have been killed by guns in the American Homeland than have the military lost to deaths incurred in EVERY war it has ever fought here and abroad since the War of Independence right up until today in the Middle East ,Africa...
That in 50 years ....more Americans have died by guns than have died in all the wars fought over the last 250 years.
Why have guns made life more dangerous and likely to kill you in peacetime at home than if you had fought in any of the wars that service people have died in defending their country and/or beliefs?
That is a fact that speaks for itself.So why won't enough Americans speak for themselves?
It defies both logic, reason and common sense yet here you are and the carnage continues.
12
This is Trumpism. Don't write it down. Don't record anything. Cover your mouth when you talk. Speak only in cryptic analogies.
The identifying characteristics of coconspirators can be recognized by the cognoscenti and should never be openly acknowledged.
From Nixon onward. There has been no learning about the importance of integrity. In fact integrity is a sign of weakness.
Lying, cheating and stealing are the foundational concepts of conservatism and religion. The key corollary is to never say that out loud.
2
Gun control and legislation in the US is long overdue...Guns should be looked on like cigarettes, they cause death. We need to follow New Zealand's lead and take all guns, made for mass slaughter, off the market. Anything else is part of the NRA and the politicians they have bought. A majority of Americans want this now!
8
Why is it that every enraged suicidal loser can go into the local gun store, but a weapon optimized for mass murder, and then try to be a "winner" in the score of how many they can kill?
Does anybody think this is what the authors of the constitution had in mind?
6
Greed, lies, lawyering up, lack of transparency have become traits of immoral American corporations and presidents.
4
These parents are heroes. After such a devastating loss, that they can pursue this fight is a testament to the love they have for their children, the citizens of this country and our country. Namaste.
13
As a lifelong hunter, I applaud any avenue to reduce or remove assault rifles from our society. We'll unfortunately continue to have murderous rampages with less lethal weapons, but each death toll will be more in the single digits to teens v/s approaching 50 at Pulse and nearly 60 in Las Vegas. Each of those lives is more important than our open ended 2nd amendment.
18
If this suit goes through I hope that the families of all those killed in the 9/11 attacks sue Boeing, as their aircraft were not sufficiently secure to prevent them from being used in a criminal assault. Next, every time a high powered automobile is used as a getaway car, the auto manufacturer can be sued for marketing the speed and performance of the vehicle.
Why should the gun makers be the only ones held liable when their products are used to commit a crime?
4
Please read the article in full. The liability at stake refers to the marketing and potential risks to the general population, not the actual manufacturing of weapons. As far as Boeing, you may have a better argument with the 737 MAX than 9/11.
5
This just in: Boeing’s going to get sued, no question, because it looks a lot like they put an airplane out there with a fundamental flaw that they should have known about. And currently, VW, Daimler-Benz, and others are up to their neck in alligators for deliberately undermining pollution improvements.
And when Tesla or whoever puts out ads that work the way some of the ads selling ASSAULT RIFLES work, then I hope they’ll get sued as well.
4
@mikecody You can sue Boeing , no law against it.
1
A few days ago I was speaking with a young man here in California about the state's attempt to ban large capacity magazines being overturned. He told me he immediately went and bought as many as possible before another judge reinstated the ban until the appeal made its way through the courts.
Further into the conversation he told me he owns "several dozen" AR-15 style rifles, dozens of assorted pistols and even larger caliber sniper rifles. Asking why, he said he was very concerned about the state "coming to take them". He doesn't make more than possibly $50K in his chosen profession but a quick back of the napkin calculation sums up his armament's value including 500,000 rounds of assorted caliber bullets is well into six figures.
I hope one day I don't have to read this comment and rue the day I wrote it.
11
Thank you for this comment. This is a profile of the people these weapons were deliberately marketed to: paranoid, not able to discern the lies behind what Republican lawmakers and the NRA spew regarding personal danger, patriotism, the 2nd Amendment, and the intent of “the liberals”.
9
I recall reading a quote regarding AR-15s and hunting, from a gun owner and hunter in New Zealand, in the aftermath of the Christchurch tragedy - she said something to the effect of, “if you need that many shots to bring down a deer then maybe you shouldn’t be out hunting”.
Very interesting point.
8
It's a side point, but thank you NYT for not publishing the name of these gunmen, thereby depriving them of the attention they crave.
I wish the Sandy Hook families well.
9
So...is a gun manufacturer protected if it advertised one of its guns let's say an AR-15 with a caption and supporting body copy that went like this...
Today, you need a gun that's going to stop all those things that are driving you crazy from ever harming you.
When things get too much and you need to take action...the XXX AR-15 will end all your worries ...it's the freedom maker!
The XXX AR-15. Solving all your problems, Permanently.
Now...if a mentally challenged or deranged person with a grudge and warped sense of reality was attracted, motivated or compelled to buy the XXX AR-15 as it appealed to his sense of injustice and unbalanced thinking and emotions...am I to believe that the manufacturer, despite such an advertisement along the lines of above ...is NOT responsible or liable for any purchase and gun massacre that may follow because of what Congress did???
Surely Not??!
2
"Lawyers for the gun companies did not respond to requests for comment."
Repeal and replace the 2nd amendment now. Realize the fact that politicians in Washington who take money from the gun industrial complex could careless what you think. We need a million person march on repealing the 2nd amendment that happens every month until it gets done.
1
@Mike You can march all you want. You're not going to get 38 states to agree with you. Period.
The South, most of the Midwest, and most of the interior West would never go for it. I doubt that an amendment to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment would even get to 30 states.
2
Just for the edification of those who are in favor of no limits on the ownership of firearms, I have included a link to the original opinion of Justice Scalia in the case of District of Colombia vs Heller, 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html. This opinion is so brilliant that it glows in the dark. It can also be quite evil as it turned out. Here , however is dicta from that opinion which casts a bright light on regulation of firearms.
Justice Scalia wrote:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive. "
It is quite clear that regulation of firearms is allowed, so, why not regulate the private ownership of military style weapons? The only reason is the mania of the gun toting members of the National Rifle Association.
Let the states and the Federal Government read this opinion carefully and regulate our current problems.
As Alfred Doolittle says to Henry Higgins in 'Pygmalion' , I put it to you; and I leave it to you.
4
There are millions of people worldwide cheering for the success of this lawsuit against soulless and greedy corporations. May the families be strong and determined in their quest for justice. Bless you all.
14
Bravo to these brave family members who choose to relive their tragedy every day for our benefit.
We should do the same for social media. Undoubtedly, social media will be linked to depression amongst our youth and undoubtedly, the big three in social (FB, Twitter, Snap) already know it.
6
In the North of Ireland , we have come to learn a thing or two about guns . My country is far from insulated from gun violence . However , each mass shooting in the US leaves us utterly perplexed : how are weapons purchased so readily? Why are licensing regulations so lax? Why is the state so stupefied in fear of the gun lobby ? But there must be someone pulling the trigger . Someone must devise , in their mind , that “ these people “ do not have the right to exist . Mental health issues are usually live . But can your nation occasionally pause , look in to it’s soul and ponder- we must be doing something wrong ? Life is precious . We must promote this message with meaning . If we do not , if we trade in life as a commodity , legions will be added to your roll of mass murderers.
6
@Gazza, The Barrister,
Well said , but I fear not so readily accepted by enough to make things start to matter to all of them ...much more.
1
Kind of going at it from the wrong trajectory. Mother ,legally purchased deadly weapons and ammunition and then placed them openly within access to her son. This is where common sense should dictate why,when she was also planning on having her son committed ,institutionalized for his erratic behavior, as he soon discovered. The facts are that she may have been actually on an anti gun crusade ,without realizing that she would be killed first and then in retaliation the children at the school where she worked. This tragedy had absolutely nothing to do with gun laws ,unfortunately.
2
@Alan Einstoss - I'd just like to remark on how odd it is that there is a very weird style of handling spacing before the commas in your remark, and the exact same weird spacing in the comment supposedly from "Gazza, The Barrister" right below.
Bots unite?
2
Most mass shootings are by people who acquired weapons legally.
Which kinda says to me, how is it that the existing checks aren’t revealing mental defect or mal-purpose behind acquisitions?
It says, to me, the existing checks and questions of the purchaser are inadequate.
1
@b fagan Pure coincidence ,unless someone is attempting to adopt my style,which happens occasionally.
As I read this article, I was reminded of the lyrics to Bob Dylan's song 'Masters of War':
"You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
While the young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins"
5
I have a right to have a gun for protection and my family has a right to have guns for hunting.Instead of sueing the gun companies sue the people who dont lock up their guns.Its not the gun companies fault if people dont lock up their guns and someone gets and uses it to kill people.I have guns in my home and they are locked up where kids or criminals cant get them.My kids were growing up and grandkids have been taught about gun safety and what to do if they see a gun.It like sueing a car company cause a family was killed by a drunk driver. Quit blaming the guns put the blame were it really belongs on the people who dont lock up their guns.
3
You can do both—sue weapons (or any product for that matter) manufacturers who design their product and marketing to a market that is not capable of either evaluating whether the product should be consumed or unknowing of the real public harm that product can cause because of how it is produced and marketed AND you can sue those who are personally responsible from keeping those dangerous products from those under their care.
6
@Dena - there are rights and there's the public right to safety. I have friends who hunt, who collect guns, who enjoy target shooting. I'm fine with that when they, as you correctly point out, lock the guns up.
At the same time, I live in a big city where criminals get access to guns through straw buyers, through a pipeline from less-strict states, and through guns taken in burglaries (gun safes would help) and through guns stolen from cars or when a person is robbed. Even cops are robbed sometimes.
And, of course, there's the dual tragedies of suicides and of headlines like "man returns to bar with gun" or "man shoots ex-" - often after a restraining order fails to restrain men who simply can't be trusted with weapons - their temper or mental stability or what have you disqualifies them.
So what do you think of the following?
- guns in homes OK with proof of gun safe
- close every loophole in background check requirement
- reduce public carry (like the Wild West civilized their Dodge Cities and the like)
- improve ability to limit the rights (yes, I'm saying it) of those with restraining orders, violent offenses, certain mental health issues.
- improve rights of families to temporarily remove guns from homes where someone's dealing with depression
- create a mechanism where people with weapons like the AR-15 can keep it stored at a shooting club or other secure location, for them to use there. Like the Swiss do when people decide to own certain weapons.
4
You do know that there are not laws requiring people to lock up their guns, right? In fact, the NRA fights legislation requiring trigger locks, or the locking up of guns in general. Individuals have been, and probably will continue to be, charged with child negligence when children access guns and cause injury or death, but that only criminalizes the behavior AFTER a shooting occurs. It does absolutely nothing to prevent new shootings. Honestly, if an actual child related shooting incident isn’t enough to get people to lock up their guns, I can’t imagine the threat of being charged with negligence after the fact would spur anyone to lock up their guns.
If a criminal accesses your guns due to negligence on your part, you would never be charged with anything. Only if you willingly provided a weapon, to a felon and/or knowing that it was likely to be used in a crime, would you ever be charged with a crime.
2
I am fully behind the Sandy Hook families & the legal actions being taken against the gun companies (I'd prefer our Congress to
prohibit, but if the heartbreaking slaughter of 20 children couldn't pass restrictions, nothing will).
I'd like to contribute to legal costs. Is there a website to do so?
5
So what's the barrier against re-writing the second amendment? It doesn't make much sense the way it's written. It seems to me a political candidate who wants to make some effective change should start by proposing that amendment be revised.
1
I don't like the Second Amendment, but it exists. If it can be undone by a backdoor approach, what is next. Which of our rights are safe. Be honest. Repeal the Second Amendment. Make that a key issue in the next election.
2
@cleo, newsflash, our rights are being trampled on as we speak, live, and breathe each day. When you cross the threshold to work your employer has all the rights. You have none. When you go up against anyone or any entity that has more money to spend on lawyers than you, you are deprived of your rights. All those social media places people think are safe are not. We'd be better off keeping a pen and paper diary than writing things to each other on email or social media.
2
There should be special laws for owning especially dangerous guns. I can’t go out and start driving a Peterbuilt without a special license. And that training ought to include a mental illness background check. Which might include references and a note of approval from a psychiatrist.
6
@Southern, Driving is a privilege and owning guns is a Right.
1
All guns are dangerous in the hands of the wrong people or untrained.
And any gun is safe in the hands of people who use them properly and maintain them in a safe manner (locked up when not in use)
2
@Southern Which of your other rights are you willing to turn over to medical approval?
1
I'd like to know how best to support the legal efforts of the Sandy Hook families. Is there a place to donate to a legal fund?
6
It was his mother's gun, so there is no connection between the marketing and the shooter's choice of weapon. If she'd had a Colt Sporter he would would have used that.
6
Hopefully the NRA will be defunct in the not too distant future and seen as the terrorist organization it is.
December 15 - 1791 the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Most guns lovers/nuts still think or want it to be 1791. The 2nd Amendment needs to be changed immediately and drastically. Till then more innocent Americans will be murdered by our homegrown terrorists.
It's 2019. Guns are sickening and there is no thing as "hunting" for "sport" so we can stop using that definition to legitimize humans buying hoards of guns for that reason.The person with the gun is the only one participating in the "hunt". And in a cowardly fashion by using gun scopes etc to murder their innocent victim for a distance. Baseball is a sport not gun owners shooting unknowing wildlife.
10
I understand and have sympathy for those who have lost loved ones because of America’s love affair with firearms. But the idea of blaming manufacturers is misplaced and I am afraid it is likely to turn out to be a dead end. The parallels drawn between the gun industry and tobacco and car manufacturers appear to be a desperate attempt to get some traction for gun control after all else has failed.
Are we going to sue GM if a nut head runs over a group of people with one of its SUV’s? Are we going to convincingly argue that semiautomatic weapons require a label that says “dangerous when pointed at someone” ?One can not translate the agency/responsibility to a party that has no way to control the will of the party who actually commits the crime.
The real problem is with this arcane document we call the Constitution and the unwillingness of Congress to recognise that the majority of people would like serious gun control. In this day an age when we are talking about artificial intelligence and driverless cars, are we going to continue to exclusively rely on a document drawn up by a group of people in 1787? Will the people armed with AR-15s be able to fight a tyrannical government with tanks and stealth bombers? The statistics have been out in the open for all to see. Societies that have banned firearms have dramatically reduced death rates associated with the use of weapons. Target the politicians who enact laws, not gun manufacturers.
5
Although guns are inherently lethal, technology can be used to improve the safety of how they are used. Mechanisms that require some form of bio-ID to “enable” a gun, for example. That kind of thing can be taken further. Artificial Intelligence could be used to monitor how a weapon is being used (especially a “non-military” weapon) and constrain it if necessary. Gun advocates who misinterpret the Second Amendment would oppose any such benevolent automatic constraint, of course, and many knotty problems would have to be resolved, but I bet computer scientists, ethicists and engineers of varying types would embrace the challenge of creating a gun that would be hard to abuse.
1
@Pen, And in a pinch, when you really needed it, the gun would malfunction. Next suggestion.
2
@Pen
The final cause of gun violence are people using them against other people. That reasonably should be the focus of gun control efforts. But it's not. The focus is upon removing dangerous weapons from the general public. This is because the most dedicated advocates consider gun ownership a clear and present danger regardless of who has them. All of their arguments presume that nobody needs guns, that regulating guns and gun ownership is an expensive waste of time. Better to just remove them from private ownership without such considerable limitations that few will want to have them. Nobody can make them trust in people who own guns to keep them from being a danger.
@Pen
The final cause of gun violence are people using them against other people. That reasonably should be the focus of gun control efforts. But it's not. The focus is upon removing dangerous weapons from the general public. This is because the most dedicated advocates consider gun ownership a clear and present danger regardless of who has them. All of their arguments presume that nobody needs guns, that regulating guns and gun ownership is an expensive waste of time. Better to just remove them from private ownership without such considerable limitations that few will want to have them. Nobody can make them trust in people who own guns to keep them from being a danger.
Guns are for shooting and they are all capable of killing. There are all kinds of fixes to limit how they may be fired but if they can be fired, they can kill.
Why do some people, mostly men, feel it so necessary to be ready to kill? Unless they live in a war zone or gang territory, they can't possibly feel as threatened in their day to day lives as women actually are. Maybe some have a hero complex. A friend tried to fix me up with her son, a committed gun owner. Absolutely not. A man who has to have a gun with him just in case has a confidence problem - not attractive and potentially much more dangerous to himself and others than a man who is not armed. The gun manufacturers sure know how to manipulate their customers. It's too bad they are so vulnerable to being used. I wonder what would happen if they suddenly became aware that they've been played, and started caring about the hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, injured and mourning.
11
@kathy Some people would have a different pov if they were attacked and their boyfriend or husband was unable to protect them. But to each their own.
1
The essence of this suit is that these powerful weapons are a danger to public health, just as cigarettes are. This could work.
We have a right to smoke cigarettes, but we place restrictions upon who can buy them and where we can smoke them. We have right to drink, but we place restrictions upon who can and what we cannot do when under the influence. We do this because these products are public health hazards.
The gun advocates argue that gun ownership is a Constitutional right. I'm no a legal scholar, but why is a legal right under our laws treated differently than a Constitutional right, which is one of our laws? If a legal right is subject to regulation, why then is a Constitutional right not subject regulation?
Guns, especially powerful guns, are also a public health hazard. I say that because the gun industry has thwarted all all scholarly efforts to demonstrate that guns are a hazard to public health.
We do regulate guns with regard to their firepower, but only for birds. Shotguns used for hunting birds are limited to just a few shells. This is done to prevent a mass slaughter of wildlife. But rifles, intended to kill people, have no such restrictions. Our society has more respect for the lives of birds than our children.
Just as the Marlboro Man was taken down, maybe we can shut down the AR-15 hyperman...and limit magazine size.....and lethality.....and who can own guns....and ammo types....and keep track of who owns them like we do with cars.
327
@Bruce Rozenblit
You certainly can attempt to limit magazine size and many of the other things on your list. The problem is that not enough people agree with you. And a sizable percentage of people would simply ignore such restrictions if they became law-as with the NY SAFE act.
To keep track of who owns what would require a much more intrusive government than most people would tolerate.
7
Have you knowledge of guns? What guns are used for hunting and how do they perform? How about guns used for target shooting? How do they compare with guns used for self defense? How do military and civilian guns compare?
You don’t know. You are imagining that if a gun is used in a battle, it is far more powerful than one used to hunt big animals like deer or elk from hundreds of yards away. They aren’t. The needs on a battle field are not the same as those of hunting. So how come so many people who never use guns are so smart about how others should use guns and which are dangerous and which are not?
You are afraid of gun violence and you don’t want to be afraid. Start there.
10
@Casual Observer
I do know this from talking to hunters. They tell me that at most they can get off two shots, usually only one and if they miss, the target animal takes off.
The lethality I refer to comes from large capacity magazines that can be changed out in a few seconds.
Hunting does not require large capacity magazines. Target shooting doesn't either. The inconvenience of reloading after say six rounds is a very small price to pay for a safer world where 50 aren't gunned down in 50 seconds.
Hunting rifles do have powerful rounds that can drop a large animal from hundreds of yards. Mass Shootings, usually occur inside a small space. The Las Vegas massacre demonstrated the lethality of which I speak. An AR15 can drop people from hundreds of yards and fire off rounds like an automatic when fitted with a bump stock. The small calibre, high velocity, round is very effective at long distance killing, hence its use as a combat weapon. Otherwise, soldiers would carry 30.06 hunting rifles. The AR is much more effective at killing people. That's what I know.
38
I look forward to the day when children have more rights than assault weapons.
302
@Ita
The first words of the the second amendment " A well regulated...."
9
@Ita
Gun are just pieces of metal, neither good nor bad. Any action they take is because a human pulled the trigger. Oh, and no assault weapons don't have right but people like me do.
3
@Ita - Many of us own weapons in order to PROTECT children. And, by the way, the term "assault weapon" is meaningless; it has no coherent definition. Firearms with that label are no more powerful or deadly than the average hunting rifle. Just FYI.
2
The gun industry is shielded from the devastation of AR-15-style weapons, but children are not. They were murdered. Where is the shield for children?
Shield children, not gun companies.
220
@common sense advocate
A brilliant yet equally sad commentary as to what the real priorities seem to be in this country.
If there was ever a single tragic event which would/should change gun legislation, I assumed it was have been because of those senseless murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
5
@common sense advocate - the gun industry is shielded by someone MISUSING their product, which is beyond their control. It would be like Ford being held liable because one of their vans was used in a kidnapping. This is an apt analogy; weapons are ALL potentially deadly. They're used by cops and felons, hero and villain alike. If you disarm the heroes, only the felons/bad guys will be armed. If you truly want to "shield" children, then do what we do to protect our banks, jewelry stores and other things we claim to cherish: post armed personnel. Because there's truth in the saying that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It's why police have 'em.
2
@DJStewCrew - if any other product were "misused" to this extent- causing 40,000 deaths a year - manufacturers would be liable for refusing to pull it off the market.
3
The ultimate solution to gun violence is our political system.
If people are afraid and repulsed by gun violence they must speak up---loudly---both within and outside of the voting booth.
The NRA and the gun-profit industry strongly support almost all Republicans politically and financially. Democrats almost universally receive no such support.
To end gun violence and enact common sense gun safety laws and regulation, voters who care about the lives and safety of their families, , friends, and indeed all Americans, must vote ALL Republicans out of federal and state office.
It is really that simple.
115
@Michael Richter Not enough. You can't realistically rely on one party to do this. It has to be both parties and once republicans see the writing on the wall that these weapons and products are killing far too many people and the public no longer will vote for it things will change forever. Discovery is a powerful tool and don't be too shocked to find that many legislators on both sides have taken absurd amounts of bribes. No legislator wants to be painted as a bribe taker even if many are just that.
20
@Martino
There is no evidence that Democrats have “...taken absurd amounts of bribes.” None!
But it is unequivocally established that most Republicans running for federal office have received large financial support from the NRA.
There have been tens of thousands of people killed by gun violence over the years and still Republicans don’t “see...that [guns] are killing far too many people.” Until all these Republicans are thrown out of office, they never will “see” gun violence.
Our only chance for sanity and gun safety is to vote for a Democratic Congress and President!
14
and just one more thing - without even going into internal corporate documents in the discovery phase, a presentation of the advertising and promotional materials used by Remington (or any other gun maker) that shows the best way they found for selling military type guns was to appeal to insecure, defensive men would by itself undercut the contention that this equipment is sold primarily for hunting or target shooting.
12
[[using litigation as a means to pry open the gun industry, employing the discovery process to unearth internal communications and examine the practices behind marketing and selling powerful firearms like the one used in the attack.]]
All they could possibly prove is that advertising worked on the mother, who actually bought the weapons, but who did not go on to murder a bunch of people.
[[examine the practices behind marketing]] The practices behind marketing are...marketing practices, whether it's guns or butter or detergent or cars. There's nothing nefarious there.
[[selling powerful firearms]] They are firearms companies....they should sell weak firearms instead of powerful firearms?
The owners of guns are responsible for their guns. They are not mindless consumers of an addictive product like cigarette users. It is they who society needs to take control of their weapons and to keep them from being misused. The power of the gun lobby is founded upon the lucrative marketing of guns to third of the people. That market is portrayed as consisting of criminals, insecure adolescents, deeply disturbed human beings, racists, domestic terrorists, and survivalist like fanatics. The gun makers and the NRA are portrayed as trading in products that that exploit human frailties and with similar disregard for life as drug cartels. Having demonized about a third of the country by characterizing them as zombies or degenerates is a losing strategy.
1
@Casual Observer
I agree that not every gun owner is a zombie or a degenerate, but I'll note that guns are addictive to some people who crave the high of harming others.
Go to a gun show and there will be people buying guns which they don't need (already having one or more), but the hype of the gun manufacturers is irresistible. Marketing works or wouldn't be so successful selling everything from the latest model car to a cool hat. Unfortunately, when gun companies began marketing high power weapons as household items instead of the weapons of war that they are, they intentionally wnet down a path that has led to deaths of children and youth. The company intention is the legal basis for the suit. (Did they knowingly consider that their weapons would be used to kill multiples of innocent victims and did they take that risk anyway?)
Yes, it is the marketing, the wish for more profits, and a lack of values that gave us Sandy Hook and others. Degenerate behavior.
3
Weapons of war are not bought or sold in gun shows nor in any legal way in this country by civilians without special federal permits. This assertion is hyperbole intended to terrify people. The problem with guns shows is allowing those who cannot legally buy guns elsewhere to buy them in gun shows.
@Casual Observer, First of all, they are not "weapons of war." The military uses fully automatic weapons and these are not. the military wouldn't touch the junk that is sold today anyway. They are semi-automatic weapons dressed up are military weapons. Ban them and the next step is to ban all semi-automatic weapons. That's why this will fail. And the old lie about gun shows. Come on.
3
Can I sue the Democratic Party if an immigrant that is not here legally kills a family member they knew the risks and disobeyed the law
4
Gun manufacturers as well as the NRA have bought and paid for Congress. Therein lies the problem to our gun laws in America! Vote in new members that respect human life and change gun laws to protect children which are our future.
14
This is worse than the tobacco industry. The people who were murdered at the schools decide, of their own free will to be murdered. They didn't decide that being murdered with a gun like the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle was a rite of passage to becoming an adult or being a cool teenager. Most of the people who took up smoking decided to. The problem was that cigarettes were addictive in nature and quitting was far harder than continuing despite the threat of an early death by emphysema or lung cancer.
It's not about the Second Amendment. It's about others rights to live free of the fear of being murdered or maimed for no reason other than someone being able, all too easily, to get a weapon like the Bushmaster AR-15. Hunters and collectors are not being targeted. While there will always be people who get guns illegally, the last few massacres have been committed by people using guns that were legally obtained. That has to stop.
10
My understanding is that the guns used in Sandy Hook were purchased legally and that the attacker stole the guns, killed his mother and then went on his rampage.
Someone please explain how the gun companies are or should be liable for any of this.
7
@Third.Coast
Because guns r bad mkay....
2
The gun industry should be held accountable for the terror which American kids have to deal with.
I've read a post from a mother who was mortified to learn her little daughter was practicing her "lockdown drill" of standing on a toilet so as to hide from a gunman.
If common sense and social responsibility is negated by those who insist on the very unwise course of freely arming themselves, then the very industry itself should be made a target of sustained litigation until this evil is addressed in a manner that is fitting a society that wishes to be free from the terror of an industry that has been allowed to run amok.
3
I sincerely feel terrible for these victims but you can’t hold gun makers responsible for what people do with guns. There is a significant difference between guns and tobacco. This is nothing but a political tactic to try and get around the 2nd Amendment. Why do people always think that by eliminating guns that will eliminate tragedies like Sandy Hook? It’s the same old story of punishing the many in order to punish the few. A kindergarten tactic that never works.
3
@Mike L
Gun makers can be held responsible for how they market their deadly weapons. That's what these lawsuits are aiming at.
The Second Amendment, as written, does not allow for firearms outside a militia. Now that the lawmaking branch of the SCOTUS has imposed their misreading on us, we're stuck, but surely high-velocity weapons like these can be banned. Even the Heller decision leaves room for reasonable restrictions.
10
Except a kindergartener could tell you that if you ignore what your own research and internal documents tell you, and market a weapon that you know to be dangerous to have around, and market it in ways that you know will whomp up the crazies and encourage violence, and you spend millions to conceal what you’re doing, well golly, you’re probably doing some wrong.
4
@Mike L
If it were illegal to own bushmaster ar-15’s and the like, it would be more difficult for someone like Adam Lanza to obtain one. If it were more difficult for Adam Lanza to obtain one he probably still would have carried out his horrific act but With a less powerful weapon with a smaller magazine - a handgun ,or rifle. Still a terrible unthinkable scenario but with less casualties, realistically.
So you see the types of horrible thought experiment scenarios the gun industry (whose incentivized execs wants to flood our country with as many high powered rifles as possible) puts us in. We’re focred to try and mitigate child casualties while they get rich.
Also, I dispute your use of the word “punish”. Buy a shotgun. A deer rifle. Enjoy it safely with your friends and family. But don’t tell me gun owners are being punished bec they can’t own an ar-15. It sounds ridiculous.
4
"...disregard for the well being of customers and the public". This is a huge understatement. The intent of the activity described by the gun manufacturers is criminal in nature. And not just in mass shootings. There are the 33,000 gun deaths every year, including suicides and among the young, not to mention accidental deaths from unsafe storage practices. The gun industry, along with their legislative lackeys, encourages this: no universal background checks; no mandatory safety devices or training in safe use/storage practices; no registration in many states; no liability for complicity in foreseen dangerous or unlawful use; and no 1st Amendment rights of research and publication. If not criminal, the intent is to undermine the General Welfare of all citizens.
9
Every business which produces a product should be held accountable for that product. We see recalls on cars, baby strollers, food, medications, etc. Why should the gun manufacturers, the vaccine producers (as a microbiologist I am certainly not anti-vaccination) or any other business get a free pass? Accountability is key in public responsibility. That should also go for lobbying firms in bed with the businesses they are representing. Hold all businesses accountable and responsible.
9
When a driver accidentally or recklessly or deliberately kills others, the makers and sellers are not held liable. Nobody is insisting that people should not drive cars that can cause deadly crashes nor accusing automakers of pandering instruments of death to innocent but vulnerable people. It’s because nearly all of us use autos and we distinguish between normal and responsible drivers and those who are not, we assume drivers are normal and safety conscious but are wary of those who are not and demand drivers be licensed and unsafe drivers lose their driving privileges.
@Casual Observer
The difference is that automobile companies' advertisements do not emphasize how devastating a 450 HP muscle car they are selling
can be when driven into a crowd of anti-Nazi demonstrators.
5
drivers are required to be licensed and their cars to be insured... and the intended purpose of the car is transportation, not running somebody over. guns can be unlicensed, gun owners uninsured for the damage their guns might inflict, and the intended purpose of the guns is shooting someone (possibly animals), the subtext of which is salving the gun owner's own fears.
3
The marketing for the AR-15 rifle is described as using "militaristic and hypermasculine slogans", but then as the article itself notes, the one used in the Sandy Hook shootings was purchased by a woman, so I'm not sure how that strategy computes for the plaintiffs. I think the excitement by the mainstream press over the ruling in Connecticut is way overstated, because of the chance of it being overruled, and the fact that there may not be anything in the discovery anyway other than standard marketing techniques. The comparison to the cigarette industry doesn't seem to fit well either. Why not just work on abolishing the Second Amendment?
1
@David Godinez by this logic, video game console advertisements would be targeted to parents, not children, since parents are the ones buying them. But we all know the games are in fact marketed to children and purchased by parents at the request of said children due to the effect of the advertisements.
3
Those weapons—there were several—were bought by a woman who had right-wing survivalist beliefs that contributed to her concealing her son’s profound and deepening mental illness, and who had that crazier and crazier son taught to use an assault rifle because she thought that a) it would help his mental illness, and b) prove useful in the oncoming revolutionary struggle.
That’s how that works, okay?
3
I applaud efforts for sensible gun control but I also wish that parents of children who obtain guns were held criminally liable in addition to civil suits. Also, why not make it mandatory for gun consumers to provide proof of sensible home storage at the time of purchase to ensure safety?
12
This is great, but it's not enough. It's time to repeal the Second Amendment. Full stop.
11
@JKR
I'm pretty sure a couple of the parents of shooting victims were themselves gun owners prior to the attack. Ironic, no?
Regardless, I am in favor of legal gun ownership, while being mindful of the fact that many or most gun deaths are suicides. I think illegal gun possession should be punished very severely.
1
If a review of gun magazine advertising is considered you would find not only literature but also dramatic visual content that display images of assertive and assured personalties, as well as images of patriotic and protective men and women defending themselves, family and the community. Vivd portrayals of hunters, sportsmen and women, competitive shooters and law enforcement personnel portend to show the necessity of firearms for defense and survival. Gun safety is an aside. Firearm and ammunition performance, reliability and lethality are paramount. Often included is language that directly assures your life and the lives of others can be saved by firearms. The literature often declares that armed men and women are the best defense against virulent and violent criminals. Defend your home and your family with best is a common mantra. Other images portray police, military and paramilitary personnel in dark scenarios preparing to stand fast while heavily armed. One image shows a man with his young daughter in a dark alley with a semi-auto handgun on his hip. The theme is responsibility to defend and security that comes from carrying a sidearm.
There is in fact hard sell marketing of firearms and ammunition to populations that see themselves as would be heroes. It may not be enough in court to bring penalties to arms manufacturers but discovery and public knowledge of these advertising schemes may bring change to the method and tone of advertising.
9
Try to appreciate that everyone may have feelings that resonate with these marketing tactics and you will not fall into the irrational inclination to stereotype others and then to demonize them.
Have you seen the ads for new cars and trucks? They all show driving by professional drivers on mountain tops, dusty, rough desert roads, and deep snow. Do you drive that way? It is part of their marketing. I guess if someone drives off a cliff, their family should sue the car manufacturer for their misleading advertising.
2
Many of us recognize demons when we see them, yes. Also, greedheaded marketting that’s deliberately aimed at whomping up infantile fantasies.
Try to understand that a lot of us are grown-ups, and can handle the idea that guns have their place in hunting, target-shooting, and even self-defence, without needing to run around the house in camos waving a fancy boomstick, making bangbang noises.
Advertisers have long played to the dark, irrational, repressed and needful within their target audiences — one more reason why a domestic, ad-friendly “gun industry” is such an outrage and cancer on our society. It is appalling that so many have been killed — children! — and continue to be killed so that a small minority can keep pursuing their silly, violent hobby without an iota of supervision.
18
Treat firearms like vehicles. Require license, registration and insurance. A test for firearms safety and operation to be licensed. Registration so authorities can track the firearms. And insurance based on the amount of damage each firearm is designed to accommodate.
30
@Chas. Gaucher
Rights vs privilege; should we also test and license voters? To what other rights should we attach tests and licensing requirements?
No firearm, other than those marketed only for the military, is designed to cause the kind of damage you need insurance for.
The gun bought in the sandy hook tragedy was purchased ,legally, by the mother.
We should ,of course, outlaw delivery vans, like the one used in lower manhattan, and trucks, like the one used in France, and knives, and all sorts of things.
What about gangs, like in Chicago? How many lose their lives to gang related violence?
Bump stocks are banned, they serve no useful purpose, larger mags in many states, which doesn't really mean much, and there's certainly nothing wrong with requiring background checks for all gun sales.
Most guns are licensed and registered.
Limits are placed on every right granted by the constitution including the second amendment. Not every form of arms are available to the public.
6
This should be the starting point to reaching a rational policy on guns: "Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis." (ABC News). It is outrageous that the agency that is designed to promote public safety is not even allowed to research issues relating to gun safety. Even the sponsor eventually regretted the passing of the law, but it remains the law.
27
Agree 100%.
6
@David Richards Spot on. Research and treat gun violence like the public health risk that it is, and we will find some answers. (Similar to how automobile fatalities were drastically reduced by the same approach.) The fact that the gun industry and NRA fear such research speaks volumes.
5
Transparency, it’s vital and I hope the families win, another angle might be brain research and the triggers they used there sales force and in advertising and how these triggers effect a certain percentage of the population
2
“Forces of opposition bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered”
It’s time to examine the marketing tactics behind these killing devices and the fantasy they’re promoting.
11
Anyone who has a gun or buys a gun should have to name the "well regulated militia" they belong to and are approved by for gun ownership. The regulations for all militias should be made public.
Oh for a do-over here.
19
@Barrie Grenell
Regulated, at the time, meant 'made regular' not the bureaucracy gets to tell you what you can do regulations of today.
@Rob. -- well regulated meant "orderly" in that day and it had a specific meaning in the context of an army or militia: officered and disciplined.
1
For the sake of public health and reducing preventable deaths, gun owners should be required to be certified in CPR.
It only takes a few hours -- and more "good guys" with CPR training would benefit all Americans.
There is no downside.
1
@MM - I like your idea of requirements for gun owners that help others- but do you mean they should get certified in CPR just for the good of society? Because the semiautomatic weapons they're carrying don't leave much hope that CPR would revive their victims. At that point, requiring organ donation would be more logical.
4
@common sense advocate
I see CPR training as a logical, not-onerous responsibility of firearm owners. It would equip gun owners -- in a range of settings (accidental shootings and otherwise, rural, urban, suburban) -- to take action ASAP to help those who can be helped.
The societal good/public health benefit would be a positive byproduct.
(I'm all for organ donation, but the govt needs stay out such personal, private decisions.)
1
@MM - I understand what you're saying now...thanks for explaining.
1
“In the lawsuit, the families assert that the weapon used in the massacre was marketed in a way — with militaristic and hypermasculine slogans — that specifically reached out to troubled young men like the one who carried out the attack.”
Sounds exactly like the marketing of Trump to Trump voters. And speaking of disclosure, both are obviously hiding something lethal to their success.
11
A few points to consider regarding modern sporting rifles (AR 15):
AR stands for Armalite, the inventor of this style, not "assault rifle". It was originally marketed to consumers, not the military.
The .223 or .5.56 ammunition that that these rifles use are no more deadly than many other hunting rifles, in fact they are less so.
Many other hunting rifles use multiple cartridge magazines. It is helpful to not have to reload when hunting, target shooting and in self-defense situations.`
These rifles are not especially accurate at the ranges most of the mass shootings have taken place. They are fairly heavy and unwieldy and take some time to sight. A shooter would be more successful (and more stealth) with semi-automatic pistols.
Semi-automatic guns are not machine guns. You have to pull the trigger and allow it to reset to fire again.
The marketing of these guns typically has a macho, tactical spin, and they have a military appearance, but no manufacturer has ever implied or suggested that they be used for innocently killing people. Why would they do that?
Modern sporting rifles are popular because they are affordable, they use a standardized format that is easy to customize, and they make great target and hunting rifles. Millions of enthusiasts legally own and enjoy them.
I'm an AR owner and I support much stricter background checks and long waiting periods, mandatory range and classroom training, banning bumpstocks, and maybe even 10 round magazine limits.
5
@Gofry Delving into the macabre offering that, as you say yourself, a killer might be more “successful” with silenced pistols, why do you think they use these semi-automatic weapons? Consider advertising.
@Gofry -- those wanting a target-shooting round are well served by the 22, and the 0.223/5.56 is not legal for deer or larger game in many states because it is too likely to wound cruelly, leading to slow death. The round was designed as a military round; adequately debilitating to humans (a severe injury costs the enemy more than a death), but light enough that a combat soldier can carry 200 rounds.
There is no civilian rationale for this.
I have owned guns, I have been an engineer on military weapon systems. I see no civilian rationale for guns with replaceable magazines.
2
I see you don’t know guns well at all.
First off, you don’t know that the AR-15 was indeed first designed as a military weapon. Fortunately, there’s Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
Second, you don’t know that assault rifles were specifically designed for close-in assault shooting, at precisely the sort of shortening ranges at which most of these killings take place.
Third, you don’t know that that .223 round, like all the early rounds used in early assault rifles, was specifically designed to be light, easy to carry in large amounts, low recoil and therefore easier to keep reasonably close to targets with less training, and easily reloadable after being pre-loaded in a box magazine of some type.
Fourth, you don’t know that professionals don’t use the full-auto setting, which at one point was taken off the M-16.
And fifth. You don’t know that a Bushmaster gets called an “assault rifle,” not because of the “AR,” but because it is a lineal descendenant if the German MG-44 Sturmgeweher. The term means, “storm weapon.”
Why you don’t know how these guns are actually marketted, I couldn’t say.
2
I think that the real “hope” here is that the plaintiffs and their attorneys will receive a huge amount of money. If this were an altruistic lawsuit, it could have been brought by persons who have never been harmed. However, maybe the next lawsuit should be brought by those whose family members have been killed or harmed in drive by shootings.
1
@Richard Warner such a lawsuit could not exist as, in order to sue, you need what is called “standing”, which is evidence that you have been directly harmed or effected.
2
Tell the families that have lost a family member to a drive by shooting that they did not suffer a loss.
I think this is a stretch. Tobacco products and opioids were used by the users as intended. The untoward effects were deliberately hidden by the manufacturers. As far as guns are concerned, everybody knows right out of the gate that wrongful use will have untoward consequences. I don't see the unfortunate Sandy Hook parents prevailing in this case because I believe the fact patterns are significantly different.
2
I have to say, I agree. if two or more people conspired over the phone to commit a crime, would the phone company be culpable for making their crime possible? the problem is not really the promotional techniques used by the gun manufacturers to sell their product. it is inevitable a seller will try to use what works best, regardless of the product. the problem is that guns, especially military style guns, are legally available in the first place.
2
A slippery slope that if won would open up Pandora’s box and clog our courts even more. Imagining being able to sue Chevy when you crash your corvette because the marketing told you how fast it can drive? What about all the all the booze industry marketing? Are they off the hook because they say “please drink responsibly”?
2
Yes, that would be terrible if companies considered the consequences of their advertising campaigns...
16
@Mat We restrict the way many industries can advertise for the safety of the consumer and public, why should the gun industry be any different?
4
@Susi The gun industry is already limited in advertising and marketing. No mass advertising outside of specialty publications. No marketing to minors or criminals. Warnings and cautions everywhere surrounding the product. The industry has never lied about the consequence of illegal or unsafe use of the product. Try reading the box or manual. Oh, and unlike cars and cigarettes, every legal consumer sale requires FBI approval. Can you get more regulated?
About the second amendment: My trusty old copy of the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary was published in 1971. It defines "to bear arms" as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." Arms, army, get it? The first definition under Arm is "Defensive and offensive outfit for war"
In 1776, "arms" meant military weaponry, even though people use the word differently today. Justice Scalia was such a hypocrite about originalism, as shown in the second amendment Heller case. The minority opinion talked about the meaning of "arms," but Scalia ignored it.
The part about militias in the second amendment is not necessary to conclude that arms meant military weapons, especially in the context of a country with no standing army.
7
@DL And yet the first battles of the Revolutionary War were setoff by British soldiers seeking to confiscate guns from rebellious British colonials.
So perhaps there's a reason that these rebellious political colonials later decided that private ownership of guns was important to include in the Bill of Rights for their new nation.
4
I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter. As a kid in Pennsylvania, opening day of deer season was a legitimate reason to skip work. Semi-Automatic guns were also available to the public post-WWII. The most popular were shotguns designed for duck and pheasant hunters.
However, let's face reality. There's no doubt a gun like the
AR-15 Bushmaster is designed to be a WMD. So is the ammunition. It is very destructive to flesh and bone. Frankly, I would feel much more secure for America if it was not in the hands of the general public.
BTW, I suspect discovery will find a few marketing messages addressing how intimidating these weapons appear. I would call that branding for the most insecure males.
28
Interesting how the 2nd amendment is sacred, but lots of other constitutional issues are gray. (the word 'shall' appears in regard to the DOJ turning the Mueller report in to Congress, but you don't obsess about that! Or that the IRS/Treasury SHALL turn over trump's tax returns, amirite?) Just the 'shall' about guns.
In fact, the concept of the 'well ordered militia' gets very little play in the argument. Unlike the early days of the nation, we now have a military, including a well ordered national guard, and zero need for war weapons in every house.
Anti-choice people see baby-murderers in every other American household, but those homes where hate radio blasts, confederate flags cover the windows and there are rooms full of bombs? Absolutely sacrosanct; perfectly normal behavior, no reason to regulate war weapons the way you have to regulate women's scary medical needs!
A woman pregnant by rape faces the nearly 2000 restrictions that Roe has undergone since it became law. A man who is enraged cause his girlfriend broke up with him can kill hundreds of churchgoers in just a few seconds. Prevention of murder/violence is not the point for this administration. It's profit over human life, kind of what y'all pretend to hate about Planned Parenthood.
'...shall not be infringed' is the second half of the statement. What do you think about the first part?
26
Absolutely. Tools are meant to be used. When you sell a tool as being excellent for committing mass murder, you can't suddenly claim innocence for providing the tool that actually accomplished the purpose that could not have been done without it
14
@Christine
So if a person uses a car to run another person down or as a get away car in a sore robbery during which a clerk is killed, we should ban cars?
2
@James
I've never seen a car being marketed as a killing weapon, have you?
17
@James, based on this case, your comparison would actually ask if the clerk’s family had grounds to sue that exact car manufacturer when the car had heavy (paid) advertisements in some grand theft auto video game as “the best getaway vehicle” and extolled for its virtues in escaping police etc etc.
This lawsuit will not result in any gun being banned, simply in financial damages being awarded and advertising being changed... but more likely, it will result in being dismissed.
4
These rifles were manufactured legally, sold legally to distributors, and purchased legally. Trying to pretend otherwise is a waste of time and oxygen.
If a terrorist steals your car and uses it to run people over, are you at fault? Is General Motors at fault? To ask the question is to answer it. A seller of a product is not generally held to be responsible if a subsequent purchaser (or 3rd party, such as a thief) intentionally misuses it in a criminal manner. Hence the lack of lawsuits against makers of kitchen knives or baseball bats, when their products are used to maim or injure others. I don't recall any manufacturers of box cutters being sued after 9-11, or the makers of pressure cookers being held liable for the Boston Marathon bombings.
There are sound public policy arguments for prohibiting the sale of high-capacity semi-automatic weapons. If enough popular support can be mustered, such weapons will soon exist only in museums. But to attempt to criminalize or otherwise punish the lawful sale of one, after the fact, is inviting the kind of ex post facto jurisprudence never deemed acceptable in this country.
9
@alexander hamilton funny you should mention ex post facto! The protection of legal commerce in arms act (PLCAA) passed in 2005 actually WAS retroactive, depriving plaintiffs of their legal right to sue for incidents previous to the law’s passage.
2
Well, if General Motors has done a bunch of product placements putting their car in Grand Theft Auto, and has internal documents suggesting that they thought a good marketing tactic would be selling to young boys how much the kids in a schoolyard would respect and fear you if you showed up in your black SUV with the newest, baddest feature of bumper spikes, and then a kid borrowed his parents car and plowed into the lunch line... yeah, I think GM might have some ‘splaining to do.
Let’s see the documents - if it’s all above board marketing, the companies will be fine.
3
This lawsuit is ridiculous and without legal basis. The gun industry is "shielded" from lawsuits in gun homicides much like the automobile manufacturing industry and alcohol manufacturers are "shielded" in drunk driving vehicular homicides. That is to say, they are shielded because they have no liability in how their products are mis-used, especially with a criminal intent.
In the Sandy Hook school shooting, shooter Adam Lanza STOLE the gun from his mother. There is no evidence that he used it because of an advertising campaign by Bushmaster or Remington.
Remington didn't market their gun to Lanza (or people like him, whatever that means).
The plaintiffs will be unable to prove that the reason Adam Lanza did what he did had anything to do with some kind of ulterior advertising motif by Remington. There is no nexus to the crime.
Remington doesn't advertise its guns to be used in school shootings or to gun down innocent people. Nor will there be any evidence presented at trial that Lanza was exposed to gun advertisements, let alone ones that were 'misleading.'
Should the jury decide in favor of the plaintiffs, it will ultimately be overturned and the plaintiff families will be out a lot of money in legal fees, just the the soldier's family who sued the Westboro Baptist Church and initially prevailed in at trial before a jury based upon a warped misapplication of First Amendment exclusions (before being overturned on appeal and affirmed by the Supreme Court 8-1).
6
@puma
Yep, those Fords and Chevys were clearly designed to shoot projectiles that pierce a body and tear it apart. Especially those bodies that are only six years old.
11
Military style assault weapons are marketed to kill people because there is no other purpose for a military style assault weapons.
Military style assault weapons are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing many people very quickly.
1
But military style assault weapons are designed and manufactured for the sole purpose of killing many people very quickly. And we have seen they do a very good job of it.
1
The guns used at Sandy Hook were not purchased by the killer. His mother bought the guns for him. His mother was incredibly wealthy, and yet still this young person did not receive mental heath help. It was known long before the kid was suffering and could not have these guns legally.
2
@Astralnut I wholly fault the mother for supplying the weapon, but will not fault her for failing to find the help her son needed. All reports I've read say the family did try, but sadly, the availability and accessibility of mental health services for all, and especially for the young, is seriously lacking. I've witnessed this directly with people I know (and I live in the same state so this is an apples to apples comparison).
from my recollection, Mrs. Lanza, now deceased, had a lot of culpability in neglecting her emotionally disturbed son, and in buying a lot of weapons and leaving them around the house where he could get them. one might say that she, in fact, was the perpetrator and her son Adam only a tool, like the Manchurian candidate, just as some say the blame was wholly on the shooter, and the guns and bullets were only tools he used. any way you slice it, military style weapons are too dangerous to sell to the general public, at least in part because it seems a frightening percentage of our general public is nuts and/or stupid. which was Mrs. Lanza and how do her actions compare to those of a manufacturer trying to sell a legal product?
2
@Astralnut
I’m all for gun control of anything beyond a basic handgun for protection and basic shotgun for hunting. However, the mental health approach is also a conservative tallying cry I support, if only conservatives would actually pass bills for and robustly fund it.
I suggest that anyone with time and interest read through the pile of documentation that was recently released by authorities conducting the Adam Lanza investigation. His mother’s wealth and own mental health issues are almost certainly the primary reasons for this tragedy. The documents show throughout his life she was warned first by teachers and caregivers and later by doctors and clinical experts of Adam’s profound autism and the detailed regimented framework his care required. But every single time, she changed schools repeatedly, then took up home schooling, switched doctors and clinics until she ended up with specialists at Yale, and eventually abandoned even them to pursue the fantasy that Adam would be fine in a junior college in another state (?!). There were suggestions that the move she was planning, after such a chaotic approach to his care, was a trigger for Adam’s violence given she was his first victim.
Some of those interviewed specifically stated that had she not been white and wealthy, Adam would have been flagged and intercepted by child protective services years earlier. His father should be sued as well for gross parental negligence. Where was he that whole time?!
1
As with so many things what we need here is perspective, a clear mind and some empathy.
By going to the corners, no one is going to convince anyone of anything. Reasonable people want reasonable solutions. Extreme voices tend to control the narrative but there is a clear common ground here.
Shifting the perspective is about both acknowledging reality and acting with empathy, integrity and out of concern for our citizenry.
No one is going to ban guns or “take them away”. The NRA and the gun industry cling to the second amendment like its their mothers teat. Screaming and whining why removing it from the constitution come up. But this is exactly the first step.
The second amendment has been so irrelevant for so long thats its barely relevant. Its a useless appendage.
The Right to bear arms needs to be replaced with the Responsibility to bear arms. That responsibility needs to be shared by the NRA and gun manufacturers. The law needs to follow suit.
In many parts of the country it is perfectly reasonable for people to have guns. They have many good reasons for having them. Killing people is not one of them. Many people take gun use, ownership and safety very seriously.
Mass murders, do not.
Many people support gun controls and legislation on background checks.
Nowadays, the escalation is like the buildup in nuclear weapons. We need a SALT agreement for guns.
3
The argument iss weak. We know two people with AR-15s, and both are far from being "troubled young men." (one is an Army Green Beret who recently obtained his college degree using the GI Bill and who is a devout Christian).
We have seen many others during our travels--just ordinary people who like shooting the gun.
Not only that, but how many of us know people who are not mentally sound who do not own these guns?
Finally, at its absolute best, all that a ban on AR-15s would do would be to slightly cut down the number of people who could be killed quickly. A motivated shooter will adapt.
Using "hyper-masculine" imagery for sales of guns pales next to that for American pickups. "Like a Rock, I was strong as I could be....." etc. Yet nobody kills people with their Duallies.
Find another solution.
One problem with a solution is that Gallup polls indicate that just under 30% of Americans want to ban handguns completely (2018 poll). Gun owners know that attempts to control guns are motivated by a large number of people who do not want to stop at "reasonable gun controls," but want all guns banned. So, they dig in their heels.
Also, many who propose limits have never even held a a gun, much less owned one. It's easy to propose laws that affect other people, but not you.
There are 100 million homes with a gun. For a solution, ask how can we get them on board? Instead, they get insulted by being told they are "gun nuts" or "troubled young men."
5
@Dan
Correction: 100 million people have a gun in their home, not 100 homes.
1
@Dan
Being “a devout Christian” is most certainly not a guarantee nor a reassuring trait of a responsible gun owner. The history of Christianity is littered with profound violence perpetrated by its believers in “God’s” or “Jesus’s name”. It continues to be so as the religion of identity for the white supremest movement which constantly flirts with the idea of a violent revolution to restore Christianity as the undisputed sole reigning religion of the United States. And Trump’s embrace of evangelicals has nothing to with peaceful gun control and everything to do with enraging Christians to the point of violence with his proposal of a “Second Amendment solution” to their potential political losses.
Furthermore, Christianity (along with all the Abrahamic religions) is pretty much responsible for the stubbornly persistent patriarchy that enables and empowers men to assume they have been ordained by “God” to take charge of women and society, an idea that’s been devastatingly violent to women and people who are not white, Christian, or heterosexual males.
I’d drop the “devout Christian” character reference. As a female survivor of an evangelical childhood and devout Christian parents who were encouraged to not “spare the rod”, such a designation of a male gun owner only inspires suspicion and fear, not reassurance in the least.
1
@left coast finch
boy, you really are hard on everybody because of your experiences with a few.
That devout Christian happens to be my step-son.
My father was a pastor. Too bad you didn't know him.
The very first words of our Second Amendment are “A well-regulated militia...”
In no sense could the mass murderers who target school children be called members of a well-regulated militia, much less one that might be necessary to maintain “the security of a free State...”
The vast majority of these killers are out-of-control young males with troubled pasts who are ruled by immature emotions and and determined to get their hands on dangerous weapons. The gun industry appears to be interested only in selling guns to them. Politicians in search of votes tremble in terror of the NRA and refuse to pass laws regulating these weapons of death and destruction.
Anyone who has been in the military knows an AR-15 is useless against a tank or a rocket launcher. In America, high-powered rifles are good for one thing only – murdering civilians.
All guns must be registered and gun owners tested for competence and licensed, just as vehicle drivers are. Those who own them need to be made liable for their misuse.
5
@Kris Aaron
As far as I know, firearms can't be sold to minors under age 18. So anyone under 18 got possession of a gun and committed a crime with it didn't get that weapon legally. So don't blame gun mfgs.
1
Good sense and humanity aren't working to reign in the NRA, so why not use this tactic? I admire these Sandy Hook parents so much. Not only do they grieve, but they fight as well. I think they are wonderful people and I am grateful for their efforts. They deserve the nation's thanks.
22
@William Schmidt
Good sense and humanity or strict gun control don't stop shooting in Chicago.
1
I don’t own a gun and I believe we should have much stricter gun laws and ban assault type weapons. This said, I don’t believe suing the gun manufactures is right. They have a legal right to sell their guns that our laws permit. The sad and unfortunate situation in the U.S. is our culture of violence and killing. That is what needs to be addressed. I’m not optimistic this will happen anytime soon.
3
@Landy Yes the gun industry has a right to sell their guns to the general public. The real question is how do they do that. Product branding and marketing is a sophisticated profession. What, why, who, when, and how many matters. Digital data makes that effort more efficient. That is the first place I would look in discovery regarding gun industry Marketing Targets.
4
@Landy and yet we can look to examples in our country where legal sales were conducted but the advertising was found unacceptable by the larger society (RIP Joe Camel). In an industry with already intense scrutiny but no real legal challenges since 2005 when the Bush congress made suing manufacturers for damages—a practice that is legal in any other industry—illegal, perhaps litigation is the only way to change marketing.
1
Once upon a time I learned how to shoot and handle a rifle under the auspices of the NRA. I had a .22 rifle with a scope for varmint hunting, then a .222 for-I-can't-remember-why, then a .22 pistol because mine looked like gun from the cowboy movies I grew up watching. And all of this happened before I was 18, after which time I lost interest.
At some point after all this, the gun manufacturers captured the NRA, or maybe vice-versa. And some time not so long ago the 2nd amendment got distorted to allow just about anything you want. My brother, a gun enthusiast and an otherwise reasonable fellow, postulated that if the anti-gun folks wanted to limit guns to the muzzle-loaders common during deliberations on the 2nd amendment, then the freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st amendment should be limited to quill pens. Maybe because he's my brother, I actually considered that analogy for a minute...
I think-- and earnestly hope -- that the Sandy Hook families will prevail.
13
An AR-15 might not be too complicated for the regular gun-owner to operate, but it IS a combat weapon. Semi-automatics have no place outside of combat use or specialty pest-control operations, typically the ones targeting herds of boar. For regular sports or sustenance hunting a manual load is quite enough. At least it is for people in Greenland, and they hunt more than any other nation on earth. Never have I hear an inuit hunter complain that he couldn't hunt seal because he was limited by his manual operations firearm.
14
@Jonathan Bormann Well, good thing the Constitution isn't about hunting.
2
@Jonathan Bormann
Semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
People have a right to defend themselves.
An AR-15 is not a combat weapon.
Definitely a politically charged and legal slippery slope. I fully agree the gun laws are loose, inconsistent and poorly policed. However, the act of violence is perpetrated by an individual and not the manufacturer. It's not any different than if I bludgeoned my neighbor with a hammer, the hammer manufacturer was not responsible for my actions. Or the many drivers who plow through crowds of people, the car manufacture is not at fault for making cars drive easy, fast and deadly.
Focus on the correct level of regulation. 1) limit gun ownership to a reasonable number 2) limit ammunition stockpiling (tax the heck out of it to make it costly to own) 3) prohibit assault weapon sales, they have no practical purpose 4) back ground checks on all new and on existing to create a solid baseline 5) tough punishments but consistent across nation IE kill some one in Utah has the same penalty as killing someone in Maryland.
2
@James
" It's not any different than if I bludgeoned my neighbor with a hammer, the hammer manufacturer was not responsible for my actions."
Except that there is no comparison between the marketing campaign to sell more hammers and the marketing campaign to sell more AR-15s.
11
@James wrote
"It's not any different than if I bludgeoned my neighbor with a hammer, the hammer manufacturer was not responsible for my actions."
Really? Have you seen your distinctive hammer advertised as a product placement in a video game as a weapon of mass murder, James? Was your hammer designed expressly to kill large numbers of people rapidly, then marketed as the "macho option"? If so, i think that going after its manufacturer might not be such a bad idea.
I agree with much of what else you wrote, but i believe you overlooked the focus of the article which is marketing. Particularly marketing whose effects parallel that of the cigarette industry.
Would you disagree that, as a general principle, industries should be held accountable for their ill-conceived, and in-effect malevolent, intentions, James?
13
@James The primary purposes of such things as butcher knives, baseball bats, ballpeen hammers, automobiles, and candlesticks is not to maim or kill people. although they can be and have been so used. On the contrary what is the primary purpose of a semiautomatic combat weapon if not to maim or kill? You can target shoot with a pellet gun too. As far as a slug is concerned, there is no difference between the heart of a wild boar and the heart of a first-grader in Connecticut.
11
The article fails to address the central question: Is the Connecticut state court going to allow discovery despite a pending appeal or not?
The court ruled that the PLCAA does not diminish the authority "to protect the people of Connecticut" and "the regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers." The Newtown families are due "the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations” before a jury."
By my reading, the case can proceed regardless of any federal ruling because the authority to police belongs to the state, not the federal government. Let's get discovering then.
1
If you link to the 2005 law that this article references, shielding the gun industry from lawsuits, you'll see that it's utterly bogus. Bush cited its necessity because of "frivolous lawsuits." Looking at the photo of that gun in the picture is chilling. If hunters used this, they'd have pureed deer.
2
“In the lawsuit, the families assert that the weapon used in the massacre was marketed in a way — with militaristic and hypermasculine slogans — that specifically reached out to troubled young men like the one who carried out the attack”
So, this suit is predicated on Remington’s hyper-masculine advertising to young men. Maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t this rifle purchased and owned by the killer’s mother?
I haven’t seen this gun ad, but I find it impossible to believe that Remington was suggesting that their product should be used to murder innocents.
@Joe C.
"I find it impossible to believe that Remington was suggesting that their product should be used to murder..."
What else is such a weapon good for?
Really?
2
@Joe C.
"[b]ut I find it impossible to believe that Remington was suggesting that their product should be used to murder innocents."
That's not the point. No one is saying that gun manufacturers are suggesting people commit murder.
Please re-read the paragraph you quoted.
This a classic American conundrum. Ultimately gun-ownership rights should win out but these litigants are right to fight gun manufacturers. But what about prozac etc. which is statistically linked to high school shootings? And what about all the black men in American prisons? Lots of them shouldn't be in there. Lawyers will be licking their lips. The Supreme Court is a bit of a fudge too, it is not independent, its appointees seem to be political and some of them are obviously sub-standard in terms of intellect and general knowledge.
3
Would be very interesting to see factual stats showing how many assault style weapons, and their addons (high capacity magazines, etc) were sold using existing legal loopholes that avoid background checks.
It's not only about the weapon's capability, or intended purpose, it's also about the "capability" of the owner. And both need to be scrutinized and addressed with transparency.
A good start would be allowing research of all aspects.
14
@Bob Yes - precisely why the gun industry fiercly combats such data collection...
13
@Bob Yes, as with any problem, proper research is the beginning to finding a solution. Which leads to the question of why the gun industry and NRA so fiercely oppose this research.
Whatever it takes..I both support the Sandy Hook families and applaud them. Among my greatest of wishes is to take the gun industry down. It is a lethal business, theirs is, seeped in wealth and amorality. Its brother in arms, the NRA, shares in its aim to sacrifice the innocent for an all consuming power at the altar of greed.
But let us remember, too, that cigarettes are still with us, still spreading disease and death by way of COPD and lung cancer. Curbing the use of murderous weapons must come from Congress through its laws. I see no other way. Maybe with more mass killings via those unhinged white men, our representatives will grow consciences. But I am not holding my breath.
103
@Kathy Lollock
I suspect that it will take an epidemic of mass shootings by women or non-whites to worry our "representatives."
9
@Kathy Lollock
yes, there is still cigarette smoking, but over 60% of adults in America smoked before the truth came out and its below 20% now.
Savor the victories
16
@sjs Good point.
4
I think they are on the right track with this. It should be on the manufacturers to make sure that their product , which is a dangerous one, is highly regulated and not allowed in public places. It isn't up to the public to protect themselves from the product, it's on the manufacturer to make sure their product is safe or kept away from the public.
111
@Missy This is a nice idea, but at the end of the day capitalism works on profit, and that profit trumps everything else. There are wonderful, thoughtful corporations out there, but there are as well the Enrons, the Volkswagen of Americas,etc. I'm not sure any amount of legislation will alter basic corporate intent; the making of money. I agree that firearms should not be allowed in public places, but in a society awash in fear, that will require a sea change culturally.
2
@Missy
You want manufacturers to regulate themselves and to ensure their products are kept out of public places? On what economic, legal or political logic would this make sense to the manufacturers? Why would they do this on their own?
You're willing to leave it up to the manufacturers to oversee product safety? Manufacturers would answer that they already do so and that guns are exceptionally safe to operate. Yes, that's not your point, but it is an effective response to your statement.
You want manufacturers to be responsible for keeping unsafe products away from the public? You'd absolve the public of responsibility for its own safety? Hasn't that contributed to the mess we're in?
Look, I'm a gun owner and concealed carrier, and even I'm unwilling to trust the industry to regulate itself. To reduce gun violence we need more effective and realistic gun control measures (which, to be clear, I support). We won't get them by absolving the public of responsibility and leaving things to the manufacturers. That will just lead to more of the same, and that we can't have.
7
@John What I'm saying is that if the gun manufacturers can't protect the general public from their product, just like with cigarettes there will be class action lawsuits that will force them to.
4
Guns kill by design, if Americans are foolhardy enough to allow lethal weaponry and ammunition to be commercially sold to citizens they really shouldn’t be surprised if some occasionally use them for their intended purpose.
This experiment in civilian ownership has gone on long enough and the results are in: vastly elevated levels of death and serious injury. Much higher than equivalent first world countries that have gun control. This isn’t on the manufacturers, its not even on politicians, it’s on voters and their delusions.
126
@Xoxarle
It actually IS on politicians since they block regulation at every turn,
15
@Xoxarle
Thank God for our Constitution which protects all of our rights.
3
@James: I don't recall anything in the Constitution about the right to own or use a military type automatic weapon to harm or kill another citizen. At the time the Constitution was written, they didn't have such a weapon. No need for citizenery to b e armed in such a way.
15
I pray these parents have a case here. The gun manufacturers have suppressed data about gun violence and the use of their weapons, just as Big Tobacco hid health effects and statistics on underage smoking as well as marketing of cigarettes and snuff to children.
The designing of firearms that are intended for one-step modification to assault weapons seems to be readily demonstrated evidence of gun manufacturers’ negligence and fraud.
I look forward to these matters being placed in front of juries. No sensible person can find assault weapons (and in my opinion, handguns) indispensable to a civilized society...especially one where teen boys are spending 30 hours a week committing virtual gun violence in video games.
It’s high time we emphasized the phrase “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment’s provision for a “well-regulated militia.”
272
@Bohemian Sarah — Yet you are perfectly okay with police having these very same assault weapons to kill people, and you don't seem to have a problem with the manufacturers in that case. Weird.
3
I live in a state where guns are commonplace. They are used for primarily for varmint control and hunting, but we have our share of pistols as well. Some say short guns are necessary for self defense. I have never understood that argument, but okay. What are not common in my state are assault rifles, for the simple reason that nobody in my state has a need to assault other people. I'm sure that some people here have them, but I can't imagine why.
Let me ask everyone something; how many times has an assault rifle been used to stop a home invasion? Now, how many times has one been used in a mass shooting, and how many people have died as a result? How many of those were children?
I'm a parent. For me, the math is easy.
464
@Mainer
You ask an interesting question, and it would be worth knowing the answer.
Keep in mind though that mass shootings involving "assault rifles" are extremely rare, to the point where when one happens it is national news. It is entirely possible that the use of assault rifles in home defense is much more common, but we simply don't know about it, because such incidents aren't of any interest to the media. (And because nobody really trusts advocacy groups on either side when they talk about such things).
18
@JohnB To your list of reasons as to why we don't know, you can add lack of government push to research gun violence.
Something that is patently obvious is that these attacks are far more common in America than they are in other developed countries. It's hard to not see at least a correlation there.
98
@JohnB If an assault rifle was used in home defense you can be sure it would be trumpeted 24x7 by the assault-rifle supporters. They'd try to make the owner of the gun into a national hero.
Hasn't happened yet.
72
The gun lobby is just evil.
4
BRILLIANT!!
Any way we in NYC can help?
It's a matter of shame for these toxic industry executives who can do just anything to get some more money.
More unfortunately, most if not all, of these morally bankrupt executives and shareholders in gun industry claim to be God fearing devout religious people. They and thier family members must be ashamed of themselves who are nothing more than cold blooded murderer.
The politicians and churches who collude with such criminals are no less of a accomplices in those crimes. Reality, fact, data etc has no value to them and it's useless to talk to them with data and reality of gun addiction in USA. Now these people are also spreading that deadly cult to other lawless and/or troubled countries in the world with deadly consequences.
2
@bonku — Yet you are perfectly okay with these same gun manufacturers selling assault weapons to police and the military.
It's only when they sell what is a legal product to civilians do you claim they are unethical and evil. LOL.
As with all consumer items a good pitch is needed by the manufacturers and distributors to optimize sales. In that sense the gun industry is no different from the sellers of uncounted other products.
What’s different is that a firearm isn’t a regular consumer item. It’s a superbly designed and engineered device for killing, handguns expressly designed to kill people. Of course you can use lots of things to kill people. You can suffocate someone with a Raggedy Ann doll but it’s inefficient and sometimes unworkable. If you want to kill someone a gun is the thing. It’s highly effective, doesn’t require close proximity and is quite user friendly.
Shilling an iPhone isn’t the same as selling someone that it’s a good idea to always be ready to kill someone else and that being armed to the teeth is a personal fashion statement. There’s a moral boundary being crossed by those who use scare tactics and fallacious logic that inevitably result in increased deaths and maiming of the citizenry. Take them to task.
Oh by the way, I own 3 firearms myself. But I have no romantic or Rambo-esque ideas that I’ll ever use one on another human.
13
There will be no discovery. There may well be a moral basis for holding gun manufacturers accountable for the deaths caused by their product (I think there clearly is), but legally this is a frivolous argument that will be shot down on appeal. Our constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and this right and the right to commercially cater to this right are further protected by various statutes including the 2005 one cited here. By contrast, there is no legal right to smoke or to sell cigarettes to the people; further, while tobacco companies concealed risks associated with their products, the risks associated with gun ownership are clear on their face. Another example of grandstanding that will rightly be put down.
3
Ah yes, the all American legal tactic of filing frivolous lawsuits to wear an opponent down.
4
@James
Better than the American tactic of allowing predators to shoot people under the guise of a Constitutional right when the People have insisted this cannot continue.
11
@James
Well how else to disarm a society entrenched in violence?
4
@James Yes, this old American tactic, versus the New Zealand tactic of solving the problem six days after the the tragedy.
8
The fact that two Congress members were gunned down and nothing was done tell me that the NRA has a very strong hold on our Political system
The fact that the Brady bill was eliminated tells the rest of the story
Perhaps The NYT can print a list of those members of Congress who voted out the Brady Bill. It would be very enlightening.
40
Godspeed to these families!
The gun “culture” in this country is just out of control. It’s a warped siege mentality unmoored from reality. The people that actually use guns as tools know they do not need assault rifles (or pistols with large ammunition clips, for that matter). If you want to hunt there is the hunting rifle, various .22 caliber weapons and the shotgun - all of which should carry a maximum 3-5 rounds or shells depending. Most people that I know that grew up on farms are darn good shots - I’ve seen a 13 year-old kid hit a water moccasin between the eyes from 30 feet away with your typical .22 caliber rifle. They would scoff at the notion of needing an assault rifle or anything like that; there’s no skill in it.
As a man that grew up around guns I can tell you that that is all that’s necessary. Anyone that I’ve known that has owned other types of hand guns or assault rifles, frankly has had mental health issues mostly revolving around deep feelings of inadequacy.
56
@Dudesworth — The police feel they "need" assault weapons, so you're completely wrong. According to you, the police shouldn't need such weapons either since they are fighting the same enemies as an average citizen would come up against.
@puma ...Law enforcement is a totally different topic. I feel they should have whatever they need to do their jobs.
I’m talking about private citizens, people that believe they are part of some sort of “militia” - a militia, I might add, that would be totally decimated if they came up against a genuine standing army. Some kooks with Bushmasters will not win a fight against tanks, drones or what have you. No Red Coats to fight these days...
1
Every time I read about these parents my heart both breaks and I feel great pride in their fortitude. They are devoting their lives to protecting other children after the terrible loss of their own. There is no nobler cause.
I look at my three year old daughter each time and...I can only imagine their grief and rage.
39
@Aaron
Agreed.
Thank you, Sandy Hook and Parkland families.
Your target should be public opinion, as much as industry protections/laws, which should be the envy of no one.
Godspeed.
9
Enact federal legislation which requires that all guns be issued Certificates of Title like with cars, that they be Federally registered, and that gun owners be required to maintain liability insurance with high deductibles to indemnify people harmed by their guns. Limit the number of guns that people may own to some reasonable number.
Like with cars, impose strict, vicarious liability upon gun owners for their direct or otherwise negligent conduct in connection with their guns.
As far as bullets go, the eggs I buy are imprinted with a traceable code. Do that with bullets.
This will not eliminate all gun violence but it will cut it back and provide at least some remuneration for victims.
As far as I can see, none of this in any way conflicts with that pesky 2d Amendment which would, of course, stay in full force and effect.
37
@MIKEinNYC
It would be more effective if inner city folks would stop tolerating gun violence as a means of dispute resolution and help the police. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
@James. It was only a matter of time before somebody dragged out the "inner city" (read "Black") argument. Interestingly, many of the mass shootings of late occurred outside of the inner city.
4
@MIKEinNYC All you have to do to make your ideas law is convince enough people outside of NYC to agree with you.
But that's not going to happen is it. And we both know it. You don't have the votes. You aren't ever going to have the votes.
And Adam Lanza murdered his mother. I'm not sure how imposing strict vicarious liability on her would have made a blessed bit of difference.
Ah yes, why not emulate that bit of legalized mugging that was the tobacco settlement. By promising payouts to the states, the lawyers got lawmakers and judges on board for a nice piece of daylight robbery. The lawyers on both sides came out ahead, and the states got windfalls which they promptly squandered on tax cuts.
One of the finer moments of American judicial history.
4
@Daedalus
“...squandered o tax cuts...” in other words states passed that settlement money back into the population. Its sounds ethical to me.
Your comment perplexes me. Do you remember what the tobacco industry was like in those days? I do.
8
@Aaron
For one thing, certain promises were made about money going to educational programs etc. Also, regardless of the iniquities of the tobacco companies, the whole thing was a scam from start to finish. And for good measure, the consortium of lawyers promptly announced that they would take some of their cut and use it to finance lawsuits against other unpopular companies for further gain.
1
State legislators as well as Congress can repeal a Constitutional amendment. If I were the Sandy Hook families, I would lobby every state legislator I could to bring before its assembly a proposal to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with one granting Congress the power to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
21
@NorthernVirginia Or in other words, a shot heard around the world
1
@NorthernVirginia There is nothing in the Second Ammendment which denies Congress that power, indeed the only rationale for guns is "A well-regulated militia".
@Dan Woodard MD
I appreciate your interpretation, but by removing the 2nd Amendment, there is no longer any need to argue interpretations. No discussion about militias, muskets, etc.
By repealing the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with one giving Congress the power to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms, all of the common-sense regulations that the vast majority of Americans want and need can be implemented nationwide, not state-by-state. For example: limits on technology (no semi-automatics), limits on magazine capacities, requirements for licensing guns just like automobiles, insurance requirements for owning a firearm. All of those things become possible when the 2nd Amendment has been replaced.
Our rights are what WE THE PEOPLE say they are, and if we want more control over firearms in our country, repealing the 2nd Amendment is the first step. The mere threat of success in repealing the 2nd Amendment will bring the extremists to make concessions that they will presently never make.
1
Excuse the pun, but all of these critics are vastly out gunned buy the NRA, they should just go home to their jobs and leave it alone already, nothing will change and it's ridiculous to think otherwise....
The difference is the guns are Constitutionally protected, smoking is not. These folks are unfortunately wasting their time.
3
Speech is also constitutionally protected, yet you are charged with a crime for yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none. Similarly, owning any weapon out there is not constitutionally protected. Civilians are not allowed to own tanks or shoulder-fired weapons, yet those too are firearms. Anything that is constitutionally protected has its limits. There is no more legal justification for a civilian to own an automatic weapon than there is for them to own a tank.
48
Smoking = freedom of expression
Guns = “well regulated militia” of which there is none
2
You have to have a license to drive a car. You have to have insurance to own a car. And virtually every car in America has a vin. Every car has a license plate. I don't see why the same rules don't apply to gun ownership. It's a matter of responsibility.
44
Looking from the outside, the 2nd has a scoping issue (no pun intended). Somewhere in that amendment is a cutoff between "arms" and "weapons of mass destruction".
14
Most guns, especially those used by mass murders, have the single purpose of killing or maiming. The gun manufacturers know that, as did cigarette manufacturers (and those who produced asbestos, etc). They are inherently dangerous products that have no place in a civil society, and to the extent they are allowed, they should be highly regulated.
I wish these families well - they deserve results given the horrific events they have "survived."
175
@BMD These families, these high school kids (Parkland, Florida, 2018) are us.
1) Without effective rules about who may use guns it is only a matter of time before this event happens in your neighborhood.
2) Republicans expressly protect this potential for irresponsible gum use with irresponsible laws. The NRA returns the favor by funding Republican candidates.
3) Vote Republicans out of office on November 3, 2020.
13
@BMD Tens of millions of rounds are shot through sporting rifles each year in this country and you claim that these rifle have a single purpose: killing.
There are fewer than 500 rifle deaths per year in the US (some number less than that can be attributed to sporting rifles). If the sole purpose of these rifles is killing, how do you explain the incongruity between the number of rounds shot and the number of deaths caused? Bad aim?
2
@BMD — Our constitution completely disagrees with your bizarre claim that "guns have no place in civilized society." The Founding Fathers actually thought just the opposite: that guns were essential to keeping Americans free from being ruled by a corrupt government.
2
This case is going nowhere -- slowly.
If Remington had advertised the gun as the one you want to kill school children, then the suit would be colorable.
Persons who feel helpless and unmanly without a gun are not necessarily unbalanced -- especially in a society where "protect and serve" goes out the window during periods of civil unrest.
The proper outcome for this suit -- given the clear intention of Congress -- is dismissal, with costs and sanctions awarded to Remington against the plaintiffs and their lawyers. The Connecticut Supreme Court is an embarrassment.
6
@KenC I read the ads by Remiongton, and I see quite a few people with mental illness. The ads were clearly designed to appeal to insecure adolescent males who doubt their masculinity and feel intimidated by their rivals. Guns will make them sorry for what they did to you. That is the clear message of the gun makers.
@Dan Woodard MD So why did an adult woman purchase the weapon in question? Did she doubt her masculinity?
1
“Consider Your Manhood Card Reissued”
Actual print commercial for the kind of gun used in Sandy Hook and other mass shootings.
The gun lobby has a much broader appeal and money than the tobacco lobby ever had. Using the legal process to obtain political victories is a futile weak approach.
The son of Confederate Alabama Addison Mitchell McConnell,Jr is focused on returning America to the good old days when black African Americans were either enslaved or separate and unequal.
4
Most gun crime is committed by men who are violent or mentally ill. Guns cannot currently be kept out of their hands because of the resistance of gun owners to national registration. Without registration it is impossible to trace ownership and find the people who buy guns legally and sell them illegally for use in crime. The opposition of many gun owners to registration seems to be based on a collective myth that the US government will do something they consider unacceptable and they will rise up with their personal firearms and overthrow our elected government, and install one more to their liking. Registration would, according to this myth, allow the government to "come to take their guns". If they are planning rebellion the government should obviously do just that.
24
@Dan Woodard MD
"The opposition of many gun owners to registration seems to be based on a collective myth that the US government will do something they consider unacceptable and they will rise up with their personal firearms and overthrow our elected government, and install one more to their liking."
That sounds like a vigilante movie/t.v. script that writes itself.
Heroes mowing down bad guys, lots of explosions, sweaty athleticism and stirring feats of cunning and self-sacrifice......
All the classic stuff - how can you miss?
I've got to wonder:
In general, we have a pretty good life in this country but it can feel a little bland and people can feel an urge to experience some excitement.
At what point what point does this all this exciting media product change from being a catharsis to becoming a tutorial?
Why don't the families go after the ammo manufacturers alongside gun manufacturers? It always struck me as a lost opportunity for gun control advocates. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that citizens have a "right to bear ammunition", so the constitutional argument would be a non-starter. The sale and manufacture of ammunition should be strictly regulated.
46
@Norman
Seattle has done that by taxing ammunition.
2
@Linda S, thank you. I'm glad to see this--it's a start. I don't see how the strict regulation of ammunition could not survive a constitutional argument. Even the most whimsical interpreter of the Second Amendment - and the far right has embraced a startlingly unorthodox view in this matter - would, I think, have a tough time to expand the right to encompass ammunition.
In Canada, you not only require a firearms license (which includes a written and practical test) to buy a gun, but you must present your firearms license to buy ammunition, too.
2
Not sure if we can draw parallels between guns and tobacco. Big tobacco covered up or denied the negative health outcomes of its products, which looks pretty much like knowingly marketing a defective product.
All guns are dangerous, and if they were not, they would be defective, and the ones that are sold are not known to be mechanically unsafe. Tactics to market guns so that they are appealing to the public cannot be illegal or improper, and therefore, it is a stretch to hold gun makers marketing strategies responsible because someone bought and then misused a firearm.
If this lawsuit succeeds, then any product whose misuse leads to harm would be a target. Slick advertising made someone bought the newest iPhone, and while driving and talking, there is a crash. Victims could go after the company that marketed the phone.
6
The sole purpose of a military style assault weapon is to kill many people very quickly. We have seen that the AK15 is very good at slaughtering people.
@Zejee
Thanks for taking the time to read and to respond to my post.
Any semiautomatic firearm can be used to harm many people. But in the US, where there are upwards of 300 million firearms of all types, firearms misuse as a percentage of the total firearm is small. Sure, even one misuse is one too many.
I have read there are about six million AR-15's in the US, and countless other semiautomatic rifles that are identical to the AR-15, but differ in appearance. But even with these numbers, misuse is rare (one is still too many). On the average, there are about 700-1,000 homicides per year where long guns of any type is used. AR-15 and its various variants are long guns.
The issue here, is what kind of policy to put into place that will address firearm misuse, and at the same time, be fair to the tens of millions of Americans who will never misuse a firearm.
It is time to have discovery conducted on Planned Parenthood's early experiments with synthetic hormones. Millions of fetuses received the equivalent of 200 to 500 birth control pills a day while in the womb. The damage has passed to the children of those exposed and includes many of the epidemics we are seeing today. The FDA warned in 1975 that DES was a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. These school shootings are more than likely the result of residual epigenetic changes to transcription caused by massive amounts of synthetic estrogens and the progestins.
It is not sexist to say that hormones changes can send any person over the edge.
2
@Robert
What are you talking about?
11
How do you account for low gun violence in equivalent first world countries that have similar access to birth control but strong regulation of guns?
8
@Patty O From 1940-1947 a synthetic estrogen DES was "quietly" and most often without notice, given to the wives of poor immigrants in Appalachia who worked the mines, the young nurse students at Black women's schools, Southern Black colleges and family planning clinics in the inner cities and more.
From 1947 through early in the 1960's, various experimental progestins were secretly added to the mix. All of this done to find a easy to use birth control pill.
DES was banned for pregnancy in 1971, still 8-10 million fetuses received it in the womb. The original "Pill" contained massive amounts of hormones compared to today's version.
Cellular estrogen receptors were not known of at the time DES was banned in 1971 and because estrogen was thought to be THE sex hormone, no effort was done to look at possible damages outside of the breasts and genital areas.
Today, it is known that estrogen receptors similar to those found in breast and genital tissues are almost everywhere in the body and responsible for regulating and modulating non-sexual functions like the lungs, liver, intestines and much more. If you wonder where these new diseases, school shooting and sexual identity issues are coming from; your answer is with Planned Parenthood and Katharine McCormick. McCormick was a schemer by nature and Dr. Pincus (inventor of the pill) had absolutely no problem testing on testing unsuspecting women.
The records from 1940-1947 were mostly destroyed when Eleanor Roosevelt left office.
Investigation and litigation of the producers of ridiculously murderous machines is an important step, and those brave parents take this step only after years of trying many other steps to reduce guns. In reading this article, it struck me that couldn’t we also inch a little bit closer to New Zealand by at least having Remington fund a far more detailed registration program (going forward) for every AK AR whatever to list gun owners with local law officials, do annual checks on these owners including interviewing families, ensure safe storage of these killing machines, forbid resale of these machines, and limit owners to one mass murder machine per person? Granted these are only baby steps but steps that might allow our kids to simply be kids at school.
19
As with cars, insurance for firearms should be required. Insurance companies won’t dilly dally around. Let them apply the standards and rules to firearms that they have to automobiles. Then you will have mandatory evaluation and ownership history.
If you own a potentially dangerous machine, you should be subject to the same insurance requirements as other potentially dangerous machines.
20
It is my understanding that your automobile insurance coverage is good for acts of negligence but will deny coverage for intentional misuse. This being said how will insurance have any effect on mass shootings? It might serve to financially discourage law abiding gun owners but that is about all I see it accomplishing.
2
@Blackbeard Many shootings are accidental or unintended, as when a gun is left unsecured and a child uses it to shoot himself.
As recently as 2010, the Bushmaster was being marketed under the banner "Considered Your Man Card Reissued." Even out in the open, gun manufacturers were appealing to the type of man who should never have access to a militaristic weapon - one who is insecure about his masculinity and believes a weapon that can take out scores of people in minutes makes him more macho (even the military itself shuns such types. They are a little too eager to be a hero, and thus dangerous.) Already, the manufacturers have shown a level of irresponsibility that fully justifies the Newtown families' lawsuit.
101
@DL What about alcohol?
1
@Don W yes, what about it?
2
Enough is enough. The NRA & gun lobby in the USA serve no other purposes today other than making money and serving up death on a mass scale. The have taken America’s 2nd amendment and turned it into something it was never meant to be. They have also turned so many of our politicians into empty revolvers - useless.
It’s time to put a muzzle on the gun lobby on the USA. They are hazardous to everyone’s health and safety.
168
Political decisions cause the death of more people worldwide than firearms. Can we ban politicians.
2
@Blackbeard How does this "remark" advance the conversation?
1
Nothing can fill the gap from the loss or terror from these events.
based on the outline here with similar logic, Canadian families should be preparing their lawsuits for the automotive manufacturer and rental car agency that rented the van to the now infamous "incel" that utilized this weapon(rental van) of destruction to kill and maim so many on the streets of Toronto. This could also be effective for targeting fossil fuel industry for increasing the global warming and damages to the planet from the consequences. So many guns are owned by a law abiding public without any risk of violence, we need to enforce the guidelines that prevent access to these weapons through straw purchase. This particular gun had to be wielded by a sick and tormented individual to cause harm, murder and terror. Remington and a gun cannot do anything without that individual.
5
@Gordon, your analogy is specious. What is discussed here is the possibility that gun manufacturers wilfully hid facts from consumers, promoted false advertising, and suppressed scientific research about the impact of gun victims. The lawsuit is about a cover-up. Your analogy is precisely what the gun manufacturers want you to say; hook, line, and sinker.
21
@Norman,
Thanks for the comment. "specious" is a term to discredit my comments out of hand. Your argument is one that clearly supports pursuing the fossil fuel industry under the same standards. I should redact the incel argument as no one has marketed the rental van in the way that could be seen as improving ones stature/power. It was clearly a tool misused, akin to the hardware store utility knife on the jets on 9/11.
@Gordon
Cars? Seriously? They are not inherently dangerous products like guns. However you are correct, fossil fuel companies should face consequences for stopping progress toward sustainable fuels and helping to put our world at peril.
How many times do we see mass murders who once were merely "good guys with guns?" Ask the people at Las Vegas, as all the women and children have been slaughtered by men in their lives going through a bad time.
10
Thank you to the families who are fighting to protect others and prevent future tragedies. Yes, "any industry needs robust oversight," especially one that has caused so much death, pain and mayhem.
123
@KK In NC
The industry hasn't caused it any more than the auto industry causes car crashes, in fact less. People need to police their weapons. Sandy Hooks guns were legally purchased and the mother let her ill son get to them, she in fact even purchased guns for him. So blame the manufacturer?
5
@DJ However the auto industry does not hide it's faults behind legislation and is prosecuted and faults corrected when found.
28
@DJ
Excuse me, but there is no valid comparison with buying a car vs. buying a gun. No one buys a car in order to cause a crash where people are killed or injured.
21
For those who like to attack lawyers, remember they are like journalists — not beloved until you need one. Remember asbestos, cigarettes, the Catholic sex abuse scandal; when issues and miscreants are too big or too connected for politicians and law enforcement to do their duty, we turn to civil litigation and the rule of law. Guns in America is such an issue.
98
During the Vietnam war it was said that everybody knew somebody who was affected by the war.
It won't be long before everybody will know somebody who has been affected by gun violence, or the threat of gun violence such as a lockdown.
We must stop this madness.
How can I help? Please tell me where to sign up.
79
@Dantethebaker You can help by joining a gun violence prevention group like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, or the Brady Campaign, Newtown Action, etc. We contact our Representatives and urge them to vote for sane legislation. We help get people elected who will fight for sane gun laws. If you are too busy to do that you can make a monetary contribution as well. Taking a moment to call your Reps helps too. Voting helps. Every little bit helps.
10
Next on the list: Auto manufacturers held responsible for drunk drivers.
All because liberals can't understand the idea that real liberty requires responsibility.
Sad...
13
@Mike
Cars, like airplanes, and trains, ladders, etc have a beneficial purpose in our society. Guns - their only purpose is to kill and maim. They have no redeeming purpose.
We have seen too many "good guys with guns" that turn out to be bad guys with guns killing family members, ex-girlfriends, wives, and strangers.
Liberty requires responsibility, that means giving up inherently dangerous items, like guns, to protect every person's right to a free and safe society, as much as possible.
50
@Mike liberty does require responsibility. A quick google search shows that situations involving guns costs the US more than 200 billion dollars a year. Over 4000 people are killed every year by guns, most legally owned. I do not own a gun and know many people who do not and feel no need to have them. Why should I have my taxes go to cover costs related to this issue. Maybe these costs should be borne by gun owners or added on by gun manufactures. I would bet that the gun industry and gun owners would be happy to pass safety legislation that of course would reduce this price tag that they should bear to enjoy their liberty.
20
@Mike,
We do hold auto manufacturers responsible for safety features that require some driver compliance. Example: seatbelts, which auto manufacturers resisted supplying for years, then offered only as an overpriced option, until government regulations forced them to provide them in each vehicle. The result saved millions of lives and billions of dollars in reduced insurance costs for all.
My car was totaled - twice - in 14 months by drug- and alcohol-blinded madmen roaring down the California freeways, sideways. After a perfectly accident-free 40-year driving record pushing a million miles, you can bet that I would welcome a breathalyzer ignition interlock on cars. You can also count this as reason #18 that I’ve decamped to Europe.
The freedom to maim and kill others is not a right.
18
The brazenness of the gun industry has been on display for decades. Knowing the infinitesimal opportunities where a gun is correctly used for self defense their marketing people have sung that song regardless. They know that statistically speaking the guns they are manufacturing are going to be used in criminal ways much for than legal uses, they continue to glamorize them and produce them. They didn't just write these things down, they've been crowing about them for decades.
25
Unlike cigarettes, where the tobacco companies suppressed evidence of harmful health effects, it was common knowledge that if you got shot with a gun, significant injury or death would result. Exactly what were gun manufacturers suppressing.
These guns were not defective. Rather, they were misused. Just as an ax or butcher knife can be misused. There are many devices in this world if, misused, can result in mayhem.
12
@RM They won't be able to answer your question...they prefer to be led around by emotion rather than logic
2
Weak argument. You could choose no to smoke. You can’t choose not to get slaughtered by a terrorist with military style firepower that they bought at Walmart.
74
@Jim L
Defective argument. Before the 1950s, tobacco companies were misleading consumers by representing cigarettes as harmless or even beneficial. One tobacco company bragged that more doctors smoked their brand than any other brand.
And the AR-15 has so little "firepower" that the .223 caliber round is illegal for deer hunting in many places. Its "military firepower" comes from the fact that the M-16, which it was based on, can be fired in full automatic mode. The AR-15 sold to civilians does not have this capability.
6
As a sophomore in the school next to Columbine, I wish these families luck. Intentionally or unintentionally, they're putting guns in the hands of people who should not have them. It shouldn't take a shooting at every school to get people to understand the impacts of these shootings and the damage they do.
148
I wish these parents well. As Switzerland proves, it is possible to respect private gun ownership and push manufacturers to have responsible behaviors. I believe the marketing strategies used by gun manufacturers in America have pushed society into a sick fascination with guns that goes beyond the intention of defense and protection.
250
@Carlos It's not clear what the case of Switzerland really proves. Switzerland is a country with an educated, disciplined and peaceful population, yet the incidence of gun violence, including suicide, though much lower than the US, is among the highest in Europe, probably due simply to the number of guns.
6
@Carlos
Switzerland is as white as Vermont.
But Vermont is a state subject to the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution.
There is no constitutional right to keep and bear tobacco products.
1