Sure. Their argument is that these eye-rollingly lame tacticool ads:
are militaristic marketing of military weapons to people who aren't in the military. And by selling to people in this way, the company is saying that it's OK to go out and use them as if you're in the military, which they imply is the indiscriminate murder of children.
This, they argue, is negligent entrustment, along the lines of
One of the plaintiffs has said “I think that who they are focusing on in their advertisements are young men that maybe do not feel manly and secure, and who are disenfranchised with their lives and maybe feel powerless.”
- A bartender giving "one for the road" to an obviously drunk person who's walking out of the bar jingling his car keys.
- A school bus company that hires a driver with four DUIs on his record.
- A construction company that puts an untrained person in the cab of a crane with a wrecking ball.
The whole thing is ridiculous. The bucket of whale chum who murdered those kids didn't even buy the rifle. He wasn't responding to advertising. We have no way of knowing if he ever saw the ads in the first place. He stole the rifle from the safe his mother kept it in, after he murdered her. The advertising, while stupid and distasteful, was in no way related to anything that happened, any of the crimes he committed.
Moreover, negligent entrustment has a very high legal standard. It's absurd to argue that a company, selling a product that is legal, especially one that is only sold after a background check outsourced to the state, somehow KNOWS that the customer intends to commit a crime with it.
The entire basis of their case is the assertion that ALL persons who buy firearms intend to use them to illegally kill other people. Bushmaster/Remington MUST have known this person (not even a customer!) would commit a crime with their product, because the only reason to have a rifle like this is to commit a crime with it.
Really. That's their argument.
The suit is being allowed to proceed. What will probably happen is the plaintiffs will lose, and be liable for the defendants' legal fees.
The irony here is that you think you've made a rational risk assessment, but you've bought into the marketing mystique too. Hook, line, and sinker.
We could save a lot of lives if we killed children instead of bullying them.
Aw, yes. Because I question you denying a rare thing rare that must mean I am advocating for the rare thing to happen. What a brilliant deduction.
Like everything else, there is a risk/benefit analysis. Sure, automobiles and household items can be dangerous in the wrong hands (though probably not as dangerous as a semiautomatic rifle ). However there is an enormous societal benefit to cars, trucks, power tools, cutlery ect. When has an AR-15 ever been used for anyones benefit except for in military and law enforcement settings? The only thing that the “ good, law abiding “ gun owners seem to do with these weapons is going to the shooting range and living out their war fantasies. Do cars kill more people, absolutely. Can we live without them. Nope.
The components to create a pipe bomb are perfectly legal and one can even have higher power explosives with the proper license.
So true:
You do know it is legal to own tanks, many different kinds of poisons, many different kinds of explosives, certain types of chemical weapons (including chemicals that when mixed form a dangerous gas), and fighter jets (i will grant you that they are demilitarized though). You also realize that "control" is different than banning and confiscating, right?
The big bad chemical weapons like used in the world wars are illegal worldwide. Pepper spray, and tear gas may technically fits the category and is legal
You mean hand load right?
They can live with a little child slaughter. As long as it’s not THEIR child that is.
That’s not what is being said here. That “rare thing” has already happened, multiple, multiple times. And people like you are totally ok with it because no one should impinge on your second amendment.
Please. I suspect that if any one here, gun loving fanatics and all, God forbid had a child endangered by a random school shooting, you would change your mind in a jiffy.
What an ignorant comment. First off they haven't happened "many, many times" by any logical standard. Acknowledging the rarity of an event does not tell you anything about my views on it or my action or inaction. Also, you can't assume that someone who doesn't advocate for your preferred method dealing with it is "ok with it" simply because the disagree with what might work. You are entitled to your wrong and ignorant opinions, but it doesn't make less of a jerk for making outlandish remarks to people.
Thus far you are the only one in the mud and ought to be ashamed of yourself that you are enjoying slinging insults and spewing easily falsifiable information. Not everyone who lost a child thinks your way is the right way.
Shame on you for your closed mindedness
Really? School shootings in this country have not happened many many times? Let’s see, hmm sandy hook, Aurora, Virginia tech, are the big ones that come to mind. But there’s a Wikepidia page that has lots more. What part of my info is “easily falsifiable” exactly?
Many many times in comparison to other ways people die is simply not accurate as I previously stated deaths due to "assault weapons" used in schools is a subset of a subset of a subset that is already low percentage of total deaths.
Not what I said. But thanks in trying to put words on my keyboard.
As long as it isn't their own, that is. Because in chocomorsel land all gun owners would melt down their weapons and work to ban them if their own child was the victim.
