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_twBy 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 Sanderss 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, Remingtons 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-15s 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 Remingtons AR-15s has included the following: Consider your man card reissued, and Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.
. . . much more
+10000
zalinda
(5,621 posts)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)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)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
CTyankee
(63,768 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)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)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)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
CTyankee
(63,768 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Nitram
(22,663 posts)proverbialwisdom
(4,959 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)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)All hail bad memes, NOT.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)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)This case is about a particular weapon, Remingtons 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.