The fact that this lawsuit is even being entertained is ridiculous.

Quote from: THE BOAT ecks two on April 21, 2016, 08:55:39 AM

The fact that this lawsuit is even being entertained is ridiculous.

How so?

The article in the OP makes it seem like they're going after gun manufacturers for doing what Camel cigarettes did in the 90's. Difference is, even if they are disproportionately  targeting the young adult demographic, those young adults are legally allowed to purchase their products.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to go after distributors and retailers? Unless the manufacturers are those in this case.
Or what about the folks that the dude got the gun from?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to go after distributors and retailers? Unless the manufacturers are those in this case.
Or what about the folks that the dude got the gun from?

Unless the retailer failed to follow the federal and state laws that they're held to as active FFL holders, then no, absolutely not.

Quote from: eggsalad on April 21, 2016, 01:47:13 PM

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to go after distributors and retailers? Unless the manufacturers are those in this case.
Or what about the folks that the dude got the gun from?

Maybe in other cases where there was clear neglect from the seller, but not in this one. In this case, the shooter simply used his mother's guns who obtained them all legally, so there's really no point in going after the seller who did notthing wrong here.

tbh I think this whole thing is just shitlibs wanting someone to sue but they cant sue the dead mother, so they make some retarded claims and go after Cerberus because they have all that sweet corporate money to take.

Quote from: ALIE on April 21, 2016, 08:28:10 PM

Holy shit, what the fuck? Literally an emotion based trial. You don't go after the knife manufacturer after a serial killer gets caught. Gun manufacturers should have absolutely zero legal liability.

Again, they're not suing the gun manufacturer just because the tool he made was used to commit a crime. They're claiming that the specific way the gun is designed, made and especially marketed made it particularly appealing for the shooter to commit the crimes he wanted. For your example of the knife manufacturer it would mean that they're going after him not just because his knife was used by a serial killer, but it because it had features that would make it especially attractive for one (anti-fingerprint coating, hardened tip so it wouldn't break if it hit bone, easy to get human blood out of it..) and that it was marketed specifically at people with violent tendencies.

Oh, that makes sense. My mistake.

Quote from: GohanRules12 on April 21, 2016, 01:46:56 PM

I don't think the burden should be shifted to gun manufacturer's when they have no power over the lives of their customers.  That's about as silly to me as punishing match manufacturer's for arson fires or car manufacturer's for bank robbers using their car to escape.

Well, in this case they're not suing the manufacturer just because it made a product used in a crime. They're suing because they believe that these guns are designed, made and marketed in such a way that they're more likely to be used in mass shootings like this.

For your examples, the exaggerated but more appropriate comparison would be that the matches came in a box together with all the other materials used to burn down buildings and said "the real arsonist's choice" on them, while the getaway car was marketed as a tool specifically to escape police because of things like a built in police radio scanner, studded tires for spike strips, hidden compartments under the seat to hide stolen goods in and so forth. Very exaggerated, yes, but that's what the claimants are going for here instead of just suing because they happened to have made a random product used in a crime.

I can't speak on gun advertisements since I don't believe I've seen one, but I'm pretty sure there's never been an ad that has ever been marketed towards mass shooters.

I think to correct the car analogy, it would be better to change the crime to street racing since there are legal instances of racing and speed makes a better analogy to ammo size.

 Fast cars are not designed/made for illegal street races, but being fast makes them the best tool for the crime. Adding things like turbo, a bigger engine, better exhaust, etc add to the car's already base function of going fast, making it even better at going faster, and thus perform better in illegal street races. 

Like the "No one needs more than 10 bullets", "No one needs to go faster than 35mph".  "No one needs a better grip or scope"", "No one needs turbo or a supped up engine".  While they both aren't specifically designed or intended for crime, having powerful tools is a double edged sword.

I'm against blaming the manufactuerers just like I am against blaming music or video games for violence.

They should sue the shooter's mother for allowing him to be born, or perhaps themselves for being members of society that he was involved in and thus influenced by.