Gun control debate (merged)

[evillawyer]

Wow, gun folks are triggered by the scotus's refusal to hear this case. Pun intended.

 

[0nelilreb]

And that's why cigarettes should cost as much or more as they now do. The true societal cost of smoking should be reflected in the price.

Hammer and knife manufacturers also ?

 

[hog88]

Wow, gun folks are triggered by the scotus's refusal to hear this case. Pun intended.

Everyone should be.

I mean everyone outside of the legal "profession".

 

[hndog609]

For those unaware of the workings of this lawsuit the case is not predicated on what most people are arguing about regarding firearms. It's about a STATE law regarding how the firearms in question were marketed. There's actually very little regarding firearms themselves and their lawful usage involved.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Everyone should be.

I mean everyone outside of the legal "profession".

Yeah the only people cheering this are in the legal profession. If Remington loses this the ******* lawyers could and will extend this precedent to any other way industry or product. Hopefully so much money from all industry will get thrown behind Remington that this case will get buried for the next 100 years or so.

 

[0nelilreb]

Everyone should be.

I mean everyone outside of the legal "profession".

Yup that’s the only profession that stands to gain billions in profits , everyone else will lose .

 

[hog88]

For those unaware of the workings of this lawsuit the case is not predicated on what most people are arguing about regarding firearms. It's about a STATE law regarding how the firearms in question were marketed. There's actually very little regarding firearms themselves and their lawful usage involved.

It makes no difference. If that was the case they should be suing the video game producers.

 

[37L1]

Wow, gun folks are triggered by the scotus's refusal to hear this case. Pun intended.

Eventually they will have to rule on the constitutionality of this won't they?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms
or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the
misuse of their products by others. <<NOTE: Oct. 26, 2005 - [S. 397]>>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act. 15 USC 7901 note.>> assembled,

 

[evillawyer]

 

[hog88]

Imagine that, a scumbag lawyer celebrating this. Who would have thunk it?

 

[LouderVol]

Yeah not really who you want on your team.

 

[hndog609]

It makes no difference. If that was the case they should be suing the video game producers.

It absolutely makes a difference in that the firearms themselves are not really in the equation. (at least as I currently understand the suit) This is how the Sandy Hook suits makes an end run on the PLCAA.

Depending on the outcome it could be interesting to see how marketing is impacted among any number of products.

 

[37L1]

Imagine that, a scumbag lawyer celebrating this. Who would have thunk it?

For a second I thought you were referring to EL.

 

[0nelilreb]

Every time someone quotes that idiot , I drop them one IQ point on the continuum scale I borrowed from Luther .

 

[hndog609]

I'm not aware of anything about this lawsuit that will impact "gun control", much less have a "huge impact". It could matter with marketing in those states where such laws are in place addressing that issue but that's a far cry from what Avenatti is insinuating.

 

[hog88]

It absolutely makes a difference in that the firearms themselves are not really in the equation. (at least as I currently understand the suit) This is how the Sandy Hook suits makes an end run on the PLCAA.

Depending on the outcome it could be interesting to see how marketing is impacted among any number of products.

If they are successful it opens the door for a floodgate of lawsuits. No car manufacture would want their products represented in a racing game or any kind of violent video game. I could see someone suing NASCAR, distillers, brewers, hell just about anyone.

 

[joevol33]

Internalize those externalities. No one--pro or anti-gun--can deny that gun usage in the US creates a sh*t ton of negative externalities that are borne by persons other than the gun owner or gun maker. This is just one step to putting those costs back onto the parties in the best position to limit those externalities.

How is the gun maker responsible? If they are, why can't I sue an auto maker if a drunk driver kills someone in my family?

 

[rjd970]

Lol...

 

[ETV]

Bernie Sanders calls gun buybacks 'unconstitutional' at rally: It's 'essentially confiscation'

 

[PeaceCorpsVol]

Another school shooting. Anybody but libtards care? If this happened and you lost a child due to someone having a gun that otherwise wouldn’t if there were common sense gun laws would you change your mind?

 

[1972 Grad]

Another school shooting. Anybody but libtards care? If this happened and you lost a child due to someone having a gun that otherwise wouldn’t if there were common sense gun laws would you change your mind?

Yep. No way in hell anybody gets a gun if you have common sense gun laws. That's all it would take.

 

[hog88]

Another school shooting. Anybody but libtards care? If this happened and you lost a child due to someone having a gun that otherwise wouldn’t if there were common sense gun laws would you change your mind?

Nope.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yep. No way in hell anybody gets a gun if you have common sense gun laws. That's all it would take.

And this happened in one of the states with the highest number of “common sense gun laws” on the books. Hell they even have “common sense ammunition laws”. Clearly they are working

 

[hog88]

Impeachment hearings must be going bad for the Dems. Another school shooting.

 

[hndog609]

Another school shooting. Anybody but libtards care? If this happened and you lost a child due to someone having a gun that otherwise wouldn’t if there were common sense gun laws would you change your mind?

CA is basically at the far loony end of gun laws so this argument doesn't hold up well.