6 ms·

Anyone else think this is scary? Is suing liquor companies or automobile manufacturers for impaired driving accidents next? Holding a company responsible when

Anyone else think this is scary? Is suing liquor companies or automobile manufacturers for impaired driving accidents next? Holding a company responsible when a bad person uses its product to commit criminal acts seems criminal to me.

akersten 7y ago
This line of argument was pretty prevalent in the Reddit thread I saw earlier, and I don't think it accurately characterizes the case here. This case is about the advertising that the manufacturer did. Also, the case is just being allowed to proceed, it hasn't been decided yet. It may well be that there is a desire to make a steadfast ruling on the subject overall, hence allowing the procedure.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  But note that action movies do more in the way of advertising firearms than any picture in a specialized magazine ever could.
  - akersten 7y ago
    They very well might. But there are specific laws about speech used primarily for advertising, compared to say, entertainment. For what it's worth, I think the case itself is weak.
pwinnski 7y ago
No, because the issue is more subtle than you imply. But yes, if a liquor advertises to minors, or even advocates for drunk driving in ads, then I would expect them to be sued. And yes, if auto manufacturers advertise in a way that leads to an increase in impaired driving, I would expect them to be liable for their advertising as well.
- didgeoridoo 7y ago
  I think a closer parallel would be a car company that advertises a sports car as excellent for racing. While there are legal racetracks, the manufacturer could be accused of promoting dangerous and illegal street racing as a way to push their product. Do we want to effectively ban advertising a product as fit for a legal purpose, if that purpose has some functional overlap with illegal ones? It’s a reasonable question. How such a law would be implemented and executed, however, worries me greatly.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    I guess it's good that this isn't a law then, right? It's a court case, and it is up to attorneys for each side to make their respective cases.
    - didgeoridoo 7y ago
      It’s ultimately up to us as a society whether we want these restrictions codified into law or not. Over-reliance on a patchwork of precedents and prosecutorial discretion is a path to an unpredictable and unjust legal system.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I am no fan of the NRA and their sponsors but the standard of proof in this case for the line of arguement worries me. It is one thing if e-cig manufacturers get sued for marketing as smoking cessation devices while talking about flavor or advertising on influencers - it is damn clear that they are dodging anti-tobbaco advertisement and advertising nicotine to minors and the standard of evidence is well established. But trying to draw connection between the machismo and spree shooters? It seems far too speculative when courtroom junk science based on the desired outcome has already caused problems. Plus how easily used for the next moral panic. For a silly example that Minecraft causes illegal and unpermitted construction when it is really say priced out younger generations building their own squats.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    It is up to attorneys for each side to make their respective cases. Presumably the slippery-slope argument you use will be part of the defendants' case.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Do firearms manufacturers promote reckless shooting or terrorism in their advertisement?
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    The case at hand alleges that the AR-15 specifically is market that way, yes. It will be up to a jury to decide whether they agree or not.
Clubber 7y ago
IANAL, but it seems to be a weak case and is based on how the guns were marketed. I assume they would have to prove that Lanza was motivated by the ads, which seems unlikely since 1. he's dead and 2. I haven't seen gun ads outside of niche shooting magazines, etc. Also, the counter argument might be: are movie studios, music labels, video game manufacturers, etc. liable also because they glorify gun violence as a business model? That would be a far reaching consequence. Car ads show people driving cars pretty aggressively; would they now be liable for when people get in accidents due to driving aggressively?
zaroth 7y ago
It’s absolutely scary. Particularly in the context where the suit is alleging the gun was illegally marketed, but the shooter didn’t buy the gun, he killed his mom and stole her gun before proceeding on to the school.
gruez 7y ago
The crux of the argument is that they advertised it for illegal use. >the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."
- Koshkin 7y ago
  The "well-regulated militia" does not specify the minimum head count.
  - valenciarose 7y ago
    It's more than 1, that is for damn sure. A militia is an organization, not an individual. Well-regulated organizations have a stated and understood mission, rules as to how that mission will and will not be pursued, and governance that is independent of the execution of that mission. Thus we have civilian oversight of the military, legislative oversight of the executive as part of checks and balances, boards of directors overseeing corporations and non-profits, etc. A solitary individual with a gun, no matter how good a person they are, is neither well-regulated nor a militia.
    - Koshkin 7y ago
      It is common to misunderstand what "well regulated" meant at the time of writing. (It did not mean having "rules" or "governance;" rather, it simply meant "working well" for its purpose. And the "mission" is stated right there: it is to ensure the "security of a free state." One person may not be enough - but it's a start.)
Proziam 7y ago
I'm with you on this one. People saying "it's about the advertising" are being disingenuous, or they haven't read the statements made by the plaintiffs in relation to the case. The argument being made is that the weapon that was marketed to civilians was "military-style" which, being blunt, it is not. By not striking this down as being a ridiculous case it's being left open for more lawsuits of a similar nature. Now, leaving the firearms debate and politics out of it, if the same principles applied to every other industry the alcohol, tobacco, and automotive industries would all be out of business. At some point, society is going to have to realize that we should be protecting our children by at least the same standards that we use to protect our money.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
The suit seemed pretty dubious on the face of it--they're going after a gun manufacturer for advertising and selling guns?--until I read some of the details of the brief. Remington sells a lot of guns, but this particular model was advertised with phrases like "ultimate combat weapons system" and "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered," and emphasized its standard 30-round magazine where Remington's own hunting and competition rifles have 5- or 10-round mags. They were specifically advertising this particular gun as a great way to kill a lot of people.
- Proziam 7y ago
  In the minds of sane people, those quotes would be taken to mean that the weapon is suitable for home defense and gives you every possible advantage in the worst possible situation. The same advertising model is used for all defense firearms because it plays to the fears that drive people to buy it in the first place (namely, being alone and unarmed against a group of people who want to cause harm to you.) So there's a pretty clear rationale for the focus of the ad - including the emphasis on magazine capacity. That said, competition guns all use standard capacity magazines except in the very few jurisdictions where they are forced to use diminished capacity magazines. My local sporting goods store doesn't even have magazines that are less than 30 rounds.
- LyndsySimon 7y ago
  > and emphasized its standard 30-round magazine where Remington's own hunting and competition rifles have 5- or 10-round mags. This is typically the case because of hunting laws that require them. In many states, hunting with a standard magazine is the norm. For an AR, that’s 20 or 30 rounds. > They were specifically advertising this particular gun as a great way to kill a lot of people. ... which, in some circumstances, is perfectly legal by the way. To illustrate that, here’s an ad from the 1930s for a submachinegun that ran in magazines to market to the general public: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/23/35177769_79a70efcb0.jpg https://farm1.staticflickr.com/23/35177769_79a70efcb0.jpg
jka 7y ago
It looks like the case which is being pursued focuses on the marketing of the weapons. Marketing is a powerful, proven effective force often with large financial backing, and it's possible that it doesn't always have the end consumer's interests at heart. Based on that it seems reasonable to allow cases like this to be heard, to determine whether the manufacturer could have been more careful to prevent harm, or whether they mislead consumers. I'd personally be more scared of a world in which there was no prospect for the public to hold court hearings about the content of potentially damaging and/or misleading advertising.
tomohawk 7y ago
I recall Dodge having ads of light trucks with a sound track of "intimidate". Not a fan of the ads, but say someone uses a Dodge truck to run over a bunch of people. Should Dodge be sued? Is Dodge responsible?
- foogazi 7y ago
  The Ad made me do it? Brings forth the whole marketing attribution problem - wonder if there is any jurisprudence around this
Upvoter33 7y ago
uh, no. if you think that the gun manufacturers are the oppressed and that humans getting shot are not just some casualty in pursuit of profit, you are seriously missing what is happening in the world.
not_a_cop75 7y ago
I don't see this going anywhere. There are too many arms manufacturers in the US, and many of them strictly military arms. The defense industry is not going to be sued by those families with deaths, because some nation state bought some fighter plans or bombs.

akersten 7y ago

This line of argument was pretty prevalent in the Reddit thread I saw earlier, and I don't think it accurately characterizes the case here. This case is about the advertising that the manufacturer did. Also, the case is just being allowed to proceed, it hasn't been decided yet. It may well be that there is a desire to make a steadfast ruling on the subject overall, hence allowing the procedure.

Koshkin 7y ago
But note that action movies do more in the way of advertising firearms than any picture in a specialized magazine ever could.
- akersten 7y ago
  They very well might. But there are specific laws about speech used primarily for advertising, compared to say, entertainment. For what it's worth, I think the case itself is weak.

pwinnski 7y ago

No, because the issue is more subtle than you imply. But yes, if a liquor advertises to minors, or even advocates for drunk driving in ads, then I would expect them to be sued. And yes, if auto manufacturers advertise in a way that leads to an increase in impaired driving, I would expect them to be liable for their advertising as well.

didgeoridoo 7y ago
I think a closer parallel would be a car company that advertises a sports car as excellent for racing. While there are legal racetracks, the manufacturer could be accused of promoting dangerous and illegal street racing as a way to push their product. Do we want to effectively ban advertising a product as fit for a legal purpose, if that purpose has some functional overlap with illegal ones? It’s a reasonable question. How such a law would be implemented and executed, however, worries me greatly.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  I guess it's good that this isn't a law then, right? It's a court case, and it is up to attorneys for each side to make their respective cases.
  - didgeoridoo 7y ago
    It’s ultimately up to us as a society whether we want these restrictions codified into law or not. Over-reliance on a patchwork of precedents and prosecutorial discretion is a path to an unpredictable and unjust legal system.
Nasrudith 7y ago
I am no fan of the NRA and their sponsors but the standard of proof in this case for the line of arguement worries me. It is one thing if e-cig manufacturers get sued for marketing as smoking cessation devices while talking about flavor or advertising on influencers - it is damn clear that they are dodging anti-tobbaco advertisement and advertising nicotine to minors and the standard of evidence is well established. But trying to draw connection between the machismo and spree shooters? It seems far too speculative when courtroom junk science based on the desired outcome has already caused problems. Plus how easily used for the next moral panic. For a silly example that Minecraft causes illegal and unpermitted construction when it is really say priced out younger generations building their own squats.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  It is up to attorneys for each side to make their respective cases. Presumably the slippery-slope argument you use will be part of the defendants' case.
Koshkin 7y ago
Do firearms manufacturers promote reckless shooting or terrorism in their advertisement?
- pwinnski 7y ago
  The case at hand alleges that the AR-15 specifically is market that way, yes. It will be up to a jury to decide whether they agree or not.

Clubber 7y ago

IANAL, but it seems to be a weak case and is based on how the guns were marketed. I assume they would have to prove that Lanza was motivated by the ads, which seems unlikely since 1. he's dead and 2. I haven't seen gun ads outside of niche shooting magazines, etc. Also, the counter argument might be: are movie studios, music labels, video game manufacturers, etc. liable also because they glorify gun violence as a business model? That would be a far reaching consequence. Car ads show people driving cars pretty aggressively; would they now be liable for when people get in accidents due to driving aggressively?

zaroth 7y ago

It’s absolutely scary. Particularly in the context where the suit is alleging the gun was illegally marketed, but the shooter didn’t buy the gun, he killed his mom and stole her gun before proceeding on to the school.

gruez 7y ago

The crux of the argument is that they advertised it for illegal use. >the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

Koshkin 7y ago
The "well-regulated militia" does not specify the minimum head count.
- valenciarose 7y ago
  It's more than 1, that is for damn sure. A militia is an organization, not an individual. Well-regulated organizations have a stated and understood mission, rules as to how that mission will and will not be pursued, and governance that is independent of the execution of that mission. Thus we have civilian oversight of the military, legislative oversight of the executive as part of checks and balances, boards of directors overseeing corporations and non-profits, etc. A solitary individual with a gun, no matter how good a person they are, is neither well-regulated nor a militia.
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    It is common to misunderstand what "well regulated" meant at the time of writing. (It did not mean having "rules" or "governance;" rather, it simply meant "working well" for its purpose. And the "mission" is stated right there: it is to ensure the "security of a free state." One person may not be enough - but it's a start.)

Proziam 7y ago

I'm with you on this one. People saying "it's about the advertising" are being disingenuous, or they haven't read the statements made by the plaintiffs in relation to the case. The argument being made is that the weapon that was marketed to civilians was "military-style" which, being blunt, it is not. By not striking this down as being a ridiculous case it's being left open for more lawsuits of a similar nature. Now, leaving the firearms debate and politics out of it, if the same principles applied to every other industry the alcohol, tobacco, and automotive industries would all be out of business. At some point, society is going to have to realize that we should be protecting our children by at least the same standards that we use to protect our money.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

The suit seemed pretty dubious on the face of it--they're going after a gun manufacturer for advertising and selling guns?--until I read some of the details of the brief. Remington sells a lot of guns, but this particular model was advertised with phrases like "ultimate combat weapons system" and "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered," and emphasized its standard 30-round magazine where Remington's own hunting and competition rifles have 5- or 10-round mags. They were specifically advertising this particular gun as a great way to kill a lot of people.

Proziam 7y ago
In the minds of sane people, those quotes would be taken to mean that the weapon is suitable for home defense and gives you every possible advantage in the worst possible situation. The same advertising model is used for all defense firearms because it plays to the fears that drive people to buy it in the first place (namely, being alone and unarmed against a group of people who want to cause harm to you.) So there's a pretty clear rationale for the focus of the ad - including the emphasis on magazine capacity. That said, competition guns all use standard capacity magazines except in the very few jurisdictions where they are forced to use diminished capacity magazines. My local sporting goods store doesn't even have magazines that are less than 30 rounds.
LyndsySimon 7y ago
> and emphasized its standard 30-round magazine where Remington's own hunting and competition rifles have 5- or 10-round mags. This is typically the case because of hunting laws that require them. In many states, hunting with a standard magazine is the norm. For an AR, that’s 20 or 30 rounds. > They were specifically advertising this particular gun as a great way to kill a lot of people. ... which, in some circumstances, is perfectly legal by the way. To illustrate that, here’s an ad from the 1930s for a submachinegun that ran in magazines to market to the general public: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/23/35177769_79a70efcb0.jpg https://farm1.staticflickr.com/23/35177769_79a70efcb0.jpg

jka 7y ago

It looks like the case which is being pursued focuses on the marketing of the weapons. Marketing is a powerful, proven effective force often with large financial backing, and it's possible that it doesn't always have the end consumer's interests at heart. Based on that it seems reasonable to allow cases like this to be heard, to determine whether the manufacturer could have been more careful to prevent harm, or whether they mislead consumers. I'd personally be more scared of a world in which there was no prospect for the public to hold court hearings about the content of potentially damaging and/or misleading advertising.

tomohawk 7y ago

I recall Dodge having ads of light trucks with a sound track of "intimidate". Not a fan of the ads, but say someone uses a Dodge truck to run over a bunch of people. Should Dodge be sued? Is Dodge responsible?

foogazi 7y ago
The Ad made me do it? Brings forth the whole marketing attribution problem - wonder if there is any jurisprudence around this

Upvoter33 7y ago

uh, no. if you think that the gun manufacturers are the oppressed and that humans getting shot are not just some casualty in pursuit of profit, you are seriously missing what is happening in the world.

not_a_cop75 7y ago

I don't see this going anywhere. There are too many arms manufacturers in the US, and many of them strictly military arms. The defense industry is not going to be sued by those families with deaths, because some nation state bought some fighter plans or bombs.