• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington, lower court ruling overturned

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
2a lovers head's are gonna explode!

State Supreme Court overturns lower court ruling, says Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington - Hartford Courant

The Connecticut Supreme Court Thursday narrowly reversed a ruling by a lower court judge dismissing a lawsuit by the families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting against Remington Arms Company, allowing the case to proceed.
In a 4-3 decision the court remanded the landmark gun case back to Bridgeport Superior Court and possibly created a path that other mass shooting victims can follow to get around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, known as PLCAA, which has protected the manufacturers of the AR-15 assault rifle from lawsuits.
Click to expand...
 
OscarLevant said:
2a lovers head's are gonna explode!
Click to expand...

Besides the issue already being discussed in another thread, it is not going to survive any finale challenge.
 
The gun manyfacturers’ continued aggressive marketing of a known public health hazard is not unlike the tobacco industry’s continued shameless marketing of smoking after studies had proven the tobacco/cancer link. They need to be held liable for pushing a known dangerous product on the public the same as the tobacco industry.

Now if the public wants to keep buying these products, it should still be their prerogative, just like smoking. It should not be banned, as that invariably creates backlash out of spite alone. Let them keep buying it. A fool and his money must part. But the manufacturers should be held liable for false advertising and propagating myths with their claims of “guns make us safer” and the image of the real American and real man needing a huge gun to keep his home and country safe. This is no different than the Joe Camel advertising campaign by the tobacco industry to kids and adolescents that smoking makes you cool.
 
ataraxia said:
The gun manyfacturers’ continued aggressive marketing of a known public health hazard is not unlike the tobacco industry’s continued shameless marketing of smoking after studies had proven the tobacco/cancer link. They need to be held liable for pushing a known dangerous product on the public the same as the tobacco industry.

Now if the public wants to keep buying these products, it should still be their prerogative, just like smoking. It should not be banned, as that invariably creates backlash out of spite alone. Let them keep buying it. A fool and his money must part. But the manufacturers should be held liable for false advertising and propagating myths with their claims of “guns make us safer” and the image of the real American and real man needing a huge gun to keep his home and country safe. This is no different than the Joe Camel advertising campaign by the tobacco industry to kids and adolescents that smoking makes you cool.
Click to expand...
:lamo
Health hazard? :lamo
It is a tool, not a health issue.
 
ataraxia said:
The gun manyfacturers’ continued aggressive marketing of a known public health hazard is not unlike the tobacco industry’s continued shameless marketing of smoking after studies had proven the tobacco/cancer link. They need to be held liable for pushing a known dangerous product on the public the same as the tobacco industry.

Now if the public wants to keep buying these products, it should still be their prerogative, just like smoking. It should not be banned, as that invariably creates backlash out of spite alone. Let them keep buying it. A fool and his money must part. But the manufacturers should be held liable for false advertising and propagating myths with their claims of “guns make us safer” and the image of the real American and real man needing a huge gun to keep his home and country safe. This is no different than the Joe Camel advertising campaign by the tobacco industry to kids and adolescents that smoking makes you cool.
Click to expand...

Wait are you suggesting the guns themselves are causing people to commit murder?
 
Excon said:
:lamo
Health hazard? :lamo
It is a tool, not a health issue.
Click to expand...

A nuclear weapon is just a tool too. Because we all know nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. So time to stop the unconstitutional ban on public sales of nuclear arms, right?

And what’s the worry about the North Koreans and Iranians getting nukes? If you ban nukes, they will just do the same thing with trucks and nail clippers, right?
 
ataraxia said:
The gun manyfacturers’ continued aggressive marketing of a known public health hazard is not unlike the tobacco industry’s continued shameless marketing of smoking after studies had proven the tobacco/cancer link. They need to be held liable for pushing a known dangerous product on the public the same as the tobacco industry.

Now if the public wants to keep buying these products, it should still be their prerogative, just like smoking. It should not be banned, as that invariably creates backlash out of spite alone. Let them keep buying it. A fool and his money must part. But the manufacturers should be held liable for false advertising and propagating myths with their claims of “guns make us safer” and the image of the real American and real man needing a huge gun to keep his home and country safe. This is no different than the Joe Camel advertising campaign by the tobacco industry to kids and adolescents that smoking makes you cool.
Click to expand...

Its not at all similar actually.
 
Excon said:
:lamo
Health hazard? :lamo
It is a tool, not a health issue.
Click to expand...

Studies by the centers for Disease Control (CDC) were showing that guns were a serious public health hazard, no different than smoking. That’s why the gun lobby pushed congress to ban further research there, and successfully pushed for gag orders on physicians from even being able to bring up the findings with their patients.

Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue – Science-Based Medicine

Bans on research and gag orders in Physicians, because we are a free country, right?
 
ataraxia said:
A nuclear weapon is just a tool too. Because we all know nukes don’t kill people. People kill people. So time to stop the unconstitutional ban on public sales of nuclear arms, right?

And what’s the worry about the North Koreans and Iranians getting nukes? If you ban nukes, they will just do the same thing with trucks and nail clippers, right?
Click to expand...

A nonsensical reply. Figures.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
That’s not what the public health specialists say.
Click to expand...
I can't help what idiots say.
It is not a health issue.

ataraxia said:
A tool is a tool, right? why are some weapons just tools, but others not?
Click to expand...
Really? You want to go down another absurd path?

Is a nuclear warhead a personal defensive device like a gun is?
 
Excon said:
I can't help what idiots say.
It is not a health issue.
Click to expand...

OK, public health specialists should be dismissed on public health issues. Climate change specialists should be dismissed on climate change. Infectious disease specialists should be dismissed on vaccination recommendations. Evolutionary biologists should be dismissed on evolution. We should only listen to Fox News for the real facts. Because they are the only ones without any nonsense. Got it.


Really? You want to go down another absurd path? The North Koreans and Iranians need such tools for personal defense too.

Is a nuclear warhead a personal defensive device like a gun is?
Click to expand...

A tool is a tool. You don’t get to define words in the English language too.

The N. Koreans need tools for personal defense too.
 
ataraxia said:
OK, public health specialists should be dismissed on public health issues. Climate change specialists should be dismissed on climate change. Infectious disease specialists should be dismissed on vaccination recommendations. Evolutionary biologists should be dismissed on evolution. We should only listen to Fox News for the real facts. Because they are the only ones without any nonsense. Got it.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant comparisons.
It is not a health issue no matter how much anyone wants it to be.


ataraxia said:
A tool is a tool. You don’t get to define words in the English language too.
Click to expand...
Oy vey.
I did not say it wasn't a tool. Duh! I distinguished between two different tools.
Butter knifes are tools too. Some folks can even kill with them. You want to absurdly associate them with nuclear weapons too?
Stop with the absurd bs.
 
ataraxia said:
That’s not what the public health specialists say.
Click to expand...

If any "public health specialist" compares guns to cigarettes they are mentally disabled.
 
Excon said:
:lamo
Health hazard? :lamo
It is a tool, not a health issue.
Click to expand...

Wait 'til someone points one at you. I suspect something then'll strike you as a health hazard.
 
ajn678 said:
This is entirely unconstitutional, but I am sure you don't care.
Click to expand...

Things to care about:
  1. The Second Amendment
  2. Attenuating the incidence of involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries.
If caring about former means taking no materially effective action out of concern for the latter, I can disabuse myself of my care for the former. It's an easy choice, even for me, whom nobody would call a humanist.
 
OscarLevant said:
2a lovers head's are gonna explode!
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. I can't wait to sue every major company out there if this is constitutional. Cigarette companies will be first, followed by alcohol, car, swimming pools, drug etc., I'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams. Please push this through and don't take no for an answer!
 
OscarLevant said:
2a lovers head's are gonna explode!
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see this play out. I'm not a fan at all of suing manufacturers (like the cigarette manufacturers) for the actions of the stupid.

That said, I always see these things involving those families, and I can't help but be on their sides.

I'm torn here.
 
OscarLevant said:
2a lovers head's are gonna explode!
Click to expand...

Because manufacturer's should be liable for criminal misuse of their product(s).

Drunk driving is car manufacturer's fault; knife killings are kitchenware manufacturer's fault...etc.

Complete IDIOCY. Will not stand....
 
Xelor said:
Wait 'til someone points one at you. I suspect something then'll strike you as a health hazard.
Click to expand...

I assure you it wont because it is not a health issue.
 
ataraxia said:
Studies by the centers for Disease Control (CDC) were showing that guns were a serious public health hazard, no different than smoking. That’s why the gun lobby pushed congress to ban further research there, and successfully pushed for gag orders on physicians from even being able to bring up the findings with their patients.

Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue – Science-Based Medicine

Bans on research and gag orders in Physicians, because we are a free country, right?
Click to expand...

Firearms are not parallel to cigarettes. There was no safe use of cigarettes but there are safe uses for firearms. The misuse of firearms is the problem but not the firearm itself. Cigarettes are themselves the problem as they were loaded with harmful chemicals and the harm was immediately transferred upon use and known to be transferred upon use. Firearms are different as they can be used in such a manner as to not result in harm by their use.
 
NotreDame said:
Firearms are not parallel to cigarettes. There was no safe use of cigarettes but there are safe uses for firearms. The misuse of firearms is the problem but not the firearm itself. Cigarettes are themselves the problem as they were loaded with harmful chemicals and the harm was immediately transferred upon use and known to be transferred upon use. Firearms are different as they can be used in such a manner as to not result in harm by their use.
Click to expand...

There are absolutely no safe uses for an AR15 with high capacity magazine clips and bumpstocks. The public needs thise as much as they need live nuclear ordnances in their garage.
 
ataraxia said:
There is absolutely no safe use for an AR15 with high capacity magazine clips and bumpstocks.
Click to expand...

You can dispense with the tangent of bump stocks and high capacity clips.

Safe use of AR-15: target practice, shooting off some rounds at undomesticated animals in a field...

Justifiable use: self-defense.

They are not parallel to smokes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom