5 ms·

Don’t forget their many other successful lawsuits: - school administration - rifle manufacturer - the shooters mother (home insurance) - other journalists w

Don’t forget their many other successful lawsuits: - school administration - rifle manufacturer - the shooters mother (home insurance) - other journalists who wrote about the event I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy.

sofixa 2y ago
> I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy. I don't know if it's healthy or sustainable, but it definitely sounds healthier than ignoring the tragedy altogether.
- oddevan 2y ago
  Agreed. It doesn't seem like a long-term solution, but it is the best way we have _right now_ to visit consequences on people/orgs that enabled the tragedy. If our society sees everything in cost/benefit, then increasing the costs of actions that lead to tragedies like this is one of the best things we can do.
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    > people/orgs that enabled the tragedy They didn’t though. Holding a rifle manufacturer liable for a shooting makes no sense, unless applied universally. A journalist writing a book did not cause the shooting. This is greed and lashing out in pain. I’m sure members of the community have ruined their life in pursuit of these things.
    - consteval 2y ago
      They did, if even indirectly. Just like how McDonald's holds some responsibility for the obesity epidemic. The company that makes rifles makes them to be sold. It is in the company's best interest that as many mass shootings happen as possible. By providing guns, they DID contribute to the tragedy. We can tell, because if they had never produced that gun then it would've never shot anyone. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the reason gun laws are so lax is because these companies lobby for it to be so. Again, they are incentivized to cause as many people to die as possible. Incentives matter. If mass shootings were the next blue jeans, these companies would quickly overthrow Apple. Blame is very hard and tricky, but any institution or system in place is responsible for an intuitional failure. And that's what mass shootings are - an institutional failure.
      - faggotbreath 2y ago
        [dead]
    - tzs 2y ago
      The case against Remington was largely based on how the gun was marketed.
  - hinkley 2y ago
    Suing into bankruptcy is the only flavor of capital punishment we have for corporations.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  No. I actually don’t think lashing out at any wallet that happens to be in the area will make anyone happy. The people who are responsible are dead.
  - DirkH 2y ago
    Depends on the wallets being lashed at
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      Sounds like a principled take based on rule of law.
icegreentea2 2y ago
To be specific, the suit against the mother was against the mother's estate, since the mother was murdered by the shooter... like right away. The suit was settled by the estate. The suit against the school administration was eventually dismissed (the families lost on appeal) (https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Two-Sandy-Hook-families-lose-bid-to-appeal-in-14492381.php https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Two-Sandy-Hook-famili...). I agree it seemed kinda dubious, and I think the right outcome happened here. The suit against Remington ended in a settlement, probably because Remington didn't want a chance in hell to set any legal precedent. The fact that the families got settlements is really a symptom of how unsettled the issue of gun control is in America. Like it's completely inane that it's fully legal to manufacture and sell AR-15 rifles to basically anyone, BUT that somehow marketing them to civilians is inappropriate. Remington settled because they just don't want any possibility of the status quo moving against them.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  AR-15 is merely a body style, there is no metric by which it is more dangerous than a hunting rifle.
  - consp 2y ago
    If you want to murder dozens you do not bring a hunting rifle.
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      Only for the larp value. What attributes make it more dangerous?
    - 0_____0 2y ago
      If you want to start some shit ask gun people whether you can hunt deer with 5.56
  - anonfornoreason 2y ago
    This is not even remotely true. I have done a decent amount of shooting, some dedicated training, and own multiple firearms of different types including AR style rifles. Your sort of rhetoric is at best disingenuous and not even remotely true. If you have ever trained with any rifle you will quickly realize that while there are hunting oriented semi-automatic rifles out there, the minimized recoil, the high rate of fire, the lightweight nature, and all the ergonomic accessories make AR style rifles incredibly fast and easy to shoot. Using a red dot site you can fire two rounds to the chest and one to the head at 25 yards in under 2 seconds with a small amount practice and training. Minimally trained people can do the same with iron sites in under 3. I am a big fan of the AR platform because of these reasons. They are not unique to the AR, but they are unique to a class of gun that is designed with these characteristics in mind. These are not the characteristics of hunting rifles. Honesty is important, even if it works against your beliefs!
KerrAvon 2y ago
I guarantee you these do not add up to a billion dollars.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  Wikipedia page disagrees with you. Whether they collected that amount, I do not know.
consteval 2y ago
> but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy I don't know, this, to me, is the proper set of incentives. Nobody wants to lose money, so you better do everything you can to prevent these tragedies. If we just sob a little and move on, the systems in place will not change.
multjoy 2y ago
A healthy & sustainable way would probably be to do something about school shootings in the only country where they happen on a regular basis. In the absence of that, what else would you propose?
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  > what else would you propose? Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back. Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families? > only country Want to list some other things only the US has?
  - tzs 2y ago
    > Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back. > Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families? The lawsuit wasn't about responsibility or compensation for the school shooting. It was about the years of harassment and death threats that the families of those killed had to endure from people who believed the lies that Alex Jones repeatedly told about them.
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      You’re missing context. We are discussing their 5+ other lawsuits.
  - hylaride 2y ago
    > Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back. How about not slandering the parents of the victims causing Jones' followers harass and threaten them? He could have admitted he was wrong (which he only did finally at trial and under oath - far too late), but chose to double down. What about that misery? Jones is not a victim here. He chose greed, but got owned. The motives of the families, lawyers, etc are whataboutism at best. You're essentially arguing that if somebody throws a punch at another person, said person has no right to hit back because hitting back won't take away your black eye.

sofixa 2y ago

> I don’t know exactly what compensation they should get, but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy. I don't know if it's healthy or sustainable, but it definitely sounds healthier than ignoring the tragedy altogether.

oddevan 2y ago
Agreed. It doesn't seem like a long-term solution, but it is the best way we have _right now_ to visit consequences on people/orgs that enabled the tragedy. If our society sees everything in cost/benefit, then increasing the costs of actions that lead to tragedies like this is one of the best things we can do.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  > people/orgs that enabled the tragedy They didn’t though. Holding a rifle manufacturer liable for a shooting makes no sense, unless applied universally. A journalist writing a book did not cause the shooting. This is greed and lashing out in pain. I’m sure members of the community have ruined their life in pursuit of these things.
  - consteval 2y ago
    They did, if even indirectly. Just like how McDonald's holds some responsibility for the obesity epidemic. The company that makes rifles makes them to be sold. It is in the company's best interest that as many mass shootings happen as possible. By providing guns, they DID contribute to the tragedy. We can tell, because if they had never produced that gun then it would've never shot anyone. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the reason gun laws are so lax is because these companies lobby for it to be so. Again, they are incentivized to cause as many people to die as possible. Incentives matter. If mass shootings were the next blue jeans, these companies would quickly overthrow Apple. Blame is very hard and tricky, but any institution or system in place is responsible for an intuitional failure. And that's what mass shootings are - an institutional failure.
    - faggotbreath 2y ago
      [dead]
  - tzs 2y ago
    The case against Remington was largely based on how the gun was marketed.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Suing into bankruptcy is the only flavor of capital punishment we have for corporations.
tightbookkeeper 2y ago
No. I actually don’t think lashing out at any wallet that happens to be in the area will make anyone happy. The people who are responsible are dead.
- DirkH 2y ago
  Depends on the wallets being lashed at
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    Sounds like a principled take based on rule of law.

icegreentea2 2y ago

To be specific, the suit against the mother was against the mother's estate, since the mother was murdered by the shooter... like right away. The suit was settled by the estate. The suit against the school administration was eventually dismissed (the families lost on appeal) (https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Two-Sandy-Hook-families-lose-bid-to-appeal-in-14492381.php https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Two-Sandy-Hook-famili...). I agree it seemed kinda dubious, and I think the right outcome happened here. The suit against Remington ended in a settlement, probably because Remington didn't want a chance in hell to set any legal precedent. The fact that the families got settlements is really a symptom of how unsettled the issue of gun control is in America. Like it's completely inane that it's fully legal to manufacture and sell AR-15 rifles to basically anyone, BUT that somehow marketing them to civilians is inappropriate. Remington settled because they just don't want any possibility of the status quo moving against them.

tightbookkeeper 2y ago
AR-15 is merely a body style, there is no metric by which it is more dangerous than a hunting rifle.
- consp 2y ago
  If you want to murder dozens you do not bring a hunting rifle.
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    Only for the larp value. What attributes make it more dangerous?
  - 0_____0 2y ago
    If you want to start some shit ask gun people whether you can hunt deer with 5.56
- anonfornoreason 2y ago
  This is not even remotely true. I have done a decent amount of shooting, some dedicated training, and own multiple firearms of different types including AR style rifles. Your sort of rhetoric is at best disingenuous and not even remotely true. If you have ever trained with any rifle you will quickly realize that while there are hunting oriented semi-automatic rifles out there, the minimized recoil, the high rate of fire, the lightweight nature, and all the ergonomic accessories make AR style rifles incredibly fast and easy to shoot. Using a red dot site you can fire two rounds to the chest and one to the head at 25 yards in under 2 seconds with a small amount practice and training. Minimally trained people can do the same with iron sites in under 3. I am a big fan of the AR platform because of these reasons. They are not unique to the AR, but they are unique to a class of gun that is designed with these characteristics in mind. These are not the characteristics of hunting rifles. Honesty is important, even if it works against your beliefs!

KerrAvon 2y ago

I guarantee you these do not add up to a billion dollars.

tightbookkeeper 2y ago
Wikipedia page disagrees with you. Whether they collected that amount, I do not know.

consteval 2y ago

> but this does not seem like a healthy or sustainable way for our society to deal with tragedy I don't know, this, to me, is the proper set of incentives. Nobody wants to lose money, so you better do everything you can to prevent these tragedies. If we just sob a little and move on, the systems in place will not change.

multjoy 2y ago

A healthy & sustainable way would probably be to do something about school shootings in the only country where they happen on a regular basis. In the absence of that, what else would you propose?

tightbookkeeper 2y ago
> what else would you propose? Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back. Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families? > only country Want to list some other things only the US has?
- tzs 2y ago
  > Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back. > Maybe the government could have offered education and employment guarantees to the families? The lawsuit wasn't about responsibility or compensation for the school shooting. It was about the years of harassment and death threats that the families of those killed had to endure from people who believed the lies that Alex Jones repeatedly told about them.
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    You’re missing context. We are discussing their 5+ other lawsuits.
- hylaride 2y ago
  > Not suing others for millions or billions and spreading misery. Nothing can bring those kids back. How about not slandering the parents of the victims causing Jones' followers harass and threaten them? He could have admitted he was wrong (which he only did finally at trial and under oath - far too late), but chose to double down. What about that misery? Jones is not a victim here. He chose greed, but got owned. The motives of the families, lawyers, etc are whataboutism at best. You're essentially arguing that if somebody throws a punch at another person, said person has no right to hit back because hitting back won't take away your black eye.