Gun Thread (AK appreciation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufuske

Again, nothing against going for the sellers. It's the way to go in my opinion. If you sell guns to people that are not legally permitted to own one, you deserve to have your life ruined by chain of lawsuits. Still just a quarter-measure without meaningful change in gun ownerships laws. But noone has enough courage to even start doing that, so let's just allow people to sue gun producers while shouting about violent video games and it will work out in the end, right?

---

something in the region of 400 people have died from mass shootings this year alone, and you're literately stanning for one of the poor widdle corporations that profits off this.

but since you obviously didn't actually read the article and the reasoning provided therein before crying about what was it ? "some dumb lefties jerking off" ? here is a helpful quote, and since you've already proven your complete lack of attention span, the relevant part has even been put in bold!

Quote:

---

“This simply means that the case can proceed under Connecticut state law, and it doesn’t mean that the plaintiffs will prevail,” says Robert Spitzer, a gun policy expert and chairman of the political science department at the State University of New York at Cortland.

But Spitzer and other experts say Remington could be forced to provide documents that could yield damaging internal memos—similar to the way a major civil settlement in 1998 forced the tobacco industry to disclose millions of pages of internal communications that revealed deceptive marketing practices.

“Who knows what they’ll find,” Spitzer says, “but there’s certainly a fair likelihood that it could indeed be damaging politically and perhaps even to the legal case they’re trying to make.”

---

They won't find anything but a lot of donations to NRA. In case of smoking you can do a lot of deception, downplaying all the damage to health it can do etc. How would that work out with weapons? They're less lethal than what others make? Sound marketing tactic for a gun. Targeting paranoid preppers or people affraid of home invasion? What kind of case can you build on that?

And I'm not whiteknighting for gun corporations. I'm whiteknighting for not targeting producers that can have their products misused by a letter of the law.

Quote:

---

They won't find anything but a lot of donations to NRA. In case of smoking you can do a lot of deception, downplaying all the damage to health it can do etc. How would that work out with weapons? They're less lethal than what others make? Sound marketing tactic for a gun. Targeting paranoid preppers or people affraid of home invasion? What kind of case can you build on that?

---

evidently, the plaintiff thinks there is something buried there. and you're happily ignoring my previous point with chain responsibility, setting the precedent that the manufacturer is (partially) liable for their dealers not doing due diligence before handing off a, for all intents and purposes, military assault rifle to somebody "not of sound mind" is not, in my view, unreasonable.

there is a enormous list of compounds where this is the case here, including basically all the components that go into production of stable explosives.

Quote:

---

And I'm not whiteknighting for gun corporations. I'm whiteknighting for not targeting producers that can have their products misused by a letter of the law.

---

you're literately white-knighting Remington, and the funny things about laws is that they're subject to change when required and just as important, the law is not by default morally or ethically right.

uncovering say, evidence extensive "behind the scenes" lobbying efforts even if it's above board legally is still significant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufuske

So what was the mechanical fault on Remington's side there?

---

There wasn't one. The law that made firearms manufacturers immune to liability carved out an exception if the marketing violated federal rules or some such. The suit is focusing on Remington's marketing of the weapon as a military weapon effective at killing people quickly. The plaintiffs maintain that it was the marketing that drove the shooter to purchase that specific weapon, and the courts have been receptive to this approach.

Quote:

---

The families first filed their lawsuit in December 2014, saying the Bushmaster rifle never should have been sold to the public because it is a military-style weapon. They accuse Remington of violating Connecticut's unfair trade practices law when it "knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings."

The closely watched lawsuit has survived many legal twists and turns, moving from state to federal court and back, and repeatedly escaping bids by Remington and gun owners' groups to quash it. While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun.

The 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from liability has several exceptions — including one allowing lawsuits against a gun-maker or seller that knowingly violates state or federal laws governing how a product is sold or marketed.

......

In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, 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."

Parents who lost their children on that horrible day have said it was no accident that Lanza picked the AR-15-style rifle to carry out his shooting rampage.

In 2016, Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan was killed in the attack on his elementary school, said the gunman chose an AR-15-style gun "because he knew it would kill as many people as possible as fast as possible."

---

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/77848...ton-to-proceed

Well their advertising wasnt wrong apparently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil edna

Well their advertising wasnt wrong apparently

---

No idea what kind of mental gymnastics one needs to go throught to not realize that all it proves is that product is working as intended. And now it will be fined because adverts were honest.

Problem is availability and ease of getting one for everyone. All this does is makes law more nonsensical to score some brownie points with people like Liare, while root cause and real problem is not addressed. All it will accomplish is making Remington's financial report look worse while shooting continues. Another glorious victory to progressive left.

If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
Safer to just not make assault rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VARRAKK

If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
Safer to just not make assault rifles.

---

Brb, paging Razor.

And disband military, right? I'll take your post as jokingly lobbying for Bofors Carl Gustaf to sell more equipment to US military because otherwise it's so retarded I can't wrap my head around it.

Once again in good faith: there's no point in messing with producers. These things are meant to be military use only and they should be. Stop selling this shit to civilians and get it off their hands. Not close all production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufuske

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VARRAKK

If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
Safer to just not make assault rifles.

---

Brb, paging Razor.

And disband military, right?

---

The US military is a socialist project and runs counter to the laissez faire ideals of the founding fathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keckers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufuske

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VARRAKK

If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
Safer to just not make assault rifles.

---

Brb, paging Razor.

And disband military, right?

---

The US military is a socialist project and runs counter to the laissez faire ideals of the founding fathers.

---

So disband and arm every civilian, surely this will solve it. 2nd ammendment as intended. Clearly the problem is not that civilians have access to military grade equipment, it's that they don't have enough stockpiled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufuske

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VARRAKK

If you can't get these weapon banned, you can make the manufacturers stop making them.

Many of the manufacturers aren't doing so well financially, and can't afford a lawsuit landslide.
Safer to just not make assault rifles.

---

Brb, paging Razor.

And disband military, right? I'll take your post as jokingly lobbying for Bofors Carl Gustaf to sell more equipment to US military because otherwise it's so retarded I can't wrap my head around it.

Once again in good faith: there's no point in messing with producers. These things are meant to be military use only and they should be. Stop selling this shit to civilians and get it off their hands. Not close all production.

---

There is a minor difference in selling these weapons to the public vs to the military.

Which you don't understand or see, since you asked to not make assault rifles at all.

Or maybe just make them to order when the military needs stock? It's a stupid talking point anyway as far as military procurement goes, how much money is the US gov spending to build Abrams for the sole purpose of abandoning in the desert?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufuske

Which you don't understand or see, since you asked to not make assault rifles at all.

---

look at that strawman, it's fucking terrible!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keckers

Or maybe just make them to order when the military needs stock? It's a stupid talking point anyway as far as military procurement goes, how much money is the US gov spending to build Abrams for the sole purpose of abandoning in the desert?

---

Finally getting somewhere sensible. That would be one of solutions that should be considered.

It is probably one of the least pressing problems facing America though

the funny bit about 2nd amendment warriors is they forget the first part.

quite how bubba shooting pee-filled beer cans with a AR-15 constitutes a well regulated militia is left as a exercise to the americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keckers

It is probably one of the least pressing problems facing America though

---

I disagree.

Huge economic inequality, massive prison population, mass lack of healthcare coverage, opioid epidemic, obesity epidemic, collapsing infrastructure, child raping president, at-will employment etc. Who has what type of firearm isn't a systemic problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keckers

Huge economic inequality, massive prison population, mass lack of healthcare coverage, opioid epidemic, obesity epidemic, collapsing infrastructure, child raping president, at-will employment etc. Who has what type of firearm isn't a systemic problem.

---

Collapsing infrastructure and child raping, demented president I would rank higher. But living in fear I can get shot while visiting mall or my child can while in school, ranks for me higher than all the others.