3 ms·
Isn’t the argument that the firearms makers have some burden on responsibility for allegedly irresponsibly and intentionally marketed their guns to demographics
by DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
Isn’t the argument that the firearms makers have some burden on responsibility for allegedly irresponsibly and intentionally marketed their guns to demographics known to be more likely to use them for unlawful reasons?
I’m concerned about the ramifications if the court does decide that marketers cannot be held responsible for the conduct of their customers regardless of how their marketing department works. On the bright side, at least head-shops in Idaho can stop pretending people use bongs to inhale tobacco.
- extra88 7y agoYes, it's centered on the marketing. Some of it does sound irresponsible though it's hard for me to see how it gets to the point of liability for the actions of a single shooter. Maybe the industry will be more responsible or maybe they'll just come up with "fine print" to add, gun equivalents to "professional driver on closed course" or listing prescription drug side effects.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y agoThere's been research lately over sctohastic terrorism - we may remember around the time of Gabrielle Giffords' shooting that the GOP were running ad-campaigns with visual imagery of gunsights, imploring their party base to "target" seats up for election. Tasteless at best.