Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

swag

(26,480 posts)
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:48 AM Mar 2016

Sanders is wrong about the lawsuit we filed after our son’s murder in Newtown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanders-is-wrong-about-the-lawsuit-we-filed-after-our-son-was-murdered-in-newtown/2016/03/18/d5892e2a-ebbb-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?postshare=4761458400356766&tid=ss_tw

By Mark Barden and Jackie Barden March 18 at 6:57 PM

Mark and Jackie Barden are plaintiffs in the case Soto et. al v. Bushmaster.

Our son, our sweet little Daniel, was just 7 when he was murdered in his first-grade classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. We are among the 10 families suing the manufacturer, distributor and retail seller of the assault rifle that took 26 lives in less than five minutes on that terrible day.

We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the “point” of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong.

This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.

We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.

Indeed, Remington promotes the AR-15’s capacity to inflict mass casualities. It markets its AR-15s with images of soldiers and SWAT teams; it dubs various models the “patrolman” and the “adaptive combat rifle” and declares that they are “as mission-adaptable as you are”; it encourages the notion that the AR-15 is a weapon that bestows power and glory upon those who wield it. Advertising copy for Remington’s AR-15s has included the following: “Consider your man card reissued,” and “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”

. . . much more
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
2. The problem is and has been
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:36 PM
Mar 2016

that any time you mention a particular name of a weapon, the name gets changed by the manufacturers. There are better solutions to the problem, but no politician wants to get behind it. All 'guns' should be handled like an vehicles. Every 'gun' should be licensed and every user should have a license to use that particular type of 'gun'. It is the only sensible solution until 'guns' can be outlawed entirely.

Z

swag

(26,480 posts)
3. Well, I do like the licensing and insurance idea,
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:39 PM
Mar 2016

but why blanket immunity from liability for this one industry, the gun industry?

Let lawsuits be litigated on a case-by-case basis, and judged on the merits.

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
5. Just like you can't blame Ford
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:19 PM
Mar 2016

for a person who uses a Ford vehicle to drive into a bunch of people, you can't blame a gun manufacturer for what a person does with their product. Ford can be blamed if the brakes fail, but not if there is an intent to kill. If there is an intended safety that fails on a gun, then the gun manufacturer can be blamed.

Z

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
9. A gun isn't made explicity for killing or injuring people
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:36 PM
Mar 2016

either. My sister has a gun in rural Arkansas, it is for scaring or killing dangerous animals that come too close to the house. When she had only an outhouse to use, the gun would be carried with her. She has had to shoot at bears a number of times.

You would be surprised at the number of reasons that a person will buy a gun, and the vast majority of them is not for killing a person.

Z

CTyankee

(63,768 posts)
10. I don't think that the weapon we are talking about here is what our sister would be
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:40 PM
Mar 2016

using. I she needs a weapon to protect her from harm by wild animals that's a legitimate use. But an assault weapon?

zalinda

(5,621 posts)
11. Therein lies the problem
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:55 PM
Mar 2016

What for you seems to be a very stupid choice of a weapon, arguments could also be made that a domestic Hummer is a stupid choice for a vehicle.

I see no reason that a person should have an assault weapon or a Hummer, but arguments could be made for both in some people's minds. I would think that both the aforementioned items could be argued to give the person a perception of power. I don't condone it.

But, until there is language in the law that can protect and prevent the population from stupid mistakes, we have to at least try to curb the danger with examination, licensing and insurance laws.

Z

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
14. Oh? Reply to #3: "but why blanket immunity from liability for this one industry, the gun industry?"
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 07:47 PM
Mar 2016
swag (24,708 posts)
3. Well, I do like the licensing and insurance idea,

but why blanket immunity from liability for this one industry, the gun industry?

Let lawsuits be litigated on a case-by-case basis, and judged on the merits.

- which is a factually FALSE meme. Get it now?


MORE: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/10/12/preemption-fate-of-vaccine-litigation-sits-in-high-courts-hands/

(Page 30) "...JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBERG joins, dissenting."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
CASE: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth

RECAP: The Supreme Court majority (6-2) concluded that manufacturers could NOT be sued even for faulty product design.

Nitram

(22,663 posts)
15. Nope, don't get why gun manufacturers should be shielded just because vaccine manufacturers are.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 09:00 AM
Mar 2016

Vaccines are a public health requirement, guns are a public health problem. I'm a gun owner, but I believe the number of deaths related to guns suggests they should be regulated.

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
7. Also, apparently, the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act in another example.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:56 PM
Mar 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

PRICE-ANDERSON ACT

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate.[1]

In 1978, the Act survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (see below). The Act was last renewed in 2005 for a 20-year period.

Link via... guess.
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
4. Telling lies doesn't help their case...
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:07 PM
Mar 2016

This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.


Telling lies doesn't help their case, and the above IS a lie.

"The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars", is an untruth, which, to the uneducated, looks like a truth.

The M-16 is to guns what a tank is to cars, and the ar-15 simply LOOKS like an m-16, but does not function like one.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Sanders is wrong about th...