In yet another example of using appeal to emotion over reason in efforts to demonize guns in our country, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently overturned previous rulings to allow families who fell victim to the Sandy Hook Massacre to sue Remington, the gun manufacturer that made the weapon used by Adam Lanza.
Lawyers representing the families have claimed that Remington’s marketing techniques, such as featuring their rifles in first-person shooter video games, appeals to youth and the mentally unstable.
Even if this is the case, it’s important not to get swayed by pity for the families and to realize that:
1) Nearly all viewers of Remington ads and players of first-person shooters never even think of commiting a shooting in real life.
2) Nearly all owners of Remington rifles never commit a crime. Some even prevent them.
Deranged individuals like Adam Lanza are the very minute exception, not the rule.
So, what is the answer to preventing tragedies like Sandy Hook?
Is it to develop better methods for preventing and treating mental instability?
Guess not. Apparently the answer is to sue and take all the money you can get!
Take a look at the story:
The New York Times reported on the story:
The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The lawsuit mounted a direct challenge to the immunity that Congress granted gun companies to shield them from litigation when their weapons are used in a crime. The ruling allows the case, brought by victims’ families, to maneuver around the federal shield, creating a potential opening to bring claims to trial and hold the companies, including Remington, which made the rifle, liable for the attack.
The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby. And it stands to have wider ramifications, experts said, by charting a possible legal road map for victims’ relatives and survivors from other mass shootings who want to sue gun companies.
CBS New York reported the following:
Remington, based in Madison, North Carolina, has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can’t be sued because of the 2005 law, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A Remington spokesman said Thursday the company had no comment on the court ruling.
“We have no timeline for any comments to be made on the subject,” spokesman Eric Suarez wrote in an email to The Associated Press.
James Vogts, a lawyer for Remington, has cited the 2005 federal law and previously said the Bushmaster rifle is a legal firearm used by millions of people for hunting, self-defense and target shooting.
Lanza, 20, shot his way into the locked school in Newtown on Dec. 14, 2012, and killed 20 first-graders and six educators with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, similar to an AR-15. He shot his mother to death in their Newtown home beforehand, and killed himself as police arrived at the school.
Connecticut’s child advocate said Lanza’s severe and deteriorating mental health problems, his preoccupation with violence and access to his mother’s legal weapons “proved a recipe for mass murder.”
Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan died in the shooting, said Thursday that a main goal of the lawsuit is to stop Remington and other gun makers from gearing their advertising toward troubled young men.
“We have always said our case is about reckless sales and marketing to disturbed youth,” Hockley said. “We wanted our day in court. This is a step forward to ensure that manufacturers like Remington are not allowed to keep targeting people who are at risk.”
A gun industry group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which happens to be based in Newtown, said the state Supreme Court ruling was an “overly broad interpretation” of an exception to the 2005 federal law.
“The majority’s decision today is at odds with all other state and federal appellate courts that have interpreted the scope of the exception,” the group said in a statement, adding it “respectfully disagrees with and is disappointed by the court’s majority decision.”
The consequences for the future, if the lawsuit does succeed, could prove dire for gun manufacturers and lead to stricter gun control in our country.