Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pssshh... get outta here. Even if there were no guns available to the public, the military would always have someone manufacturing them.
Nobody's counting on anyone but the actual military to have weapons. The Joint Chiefs are not sitting around worried that Steve from Skokie can or cannot buy a rifle.
Your response is hypothetical nonsense. Freeman in America would never allow your scenario to occur.
Every time the "guns are equal to cars" argument comes up, it strikes me as lazy.
Anything can be weaponized. Guns ARE weapons. That is their ORIGINAL intent.
Societally, when guns get advertised as things you use to shoot humans, it is problematic.
What kills more people everyday in America, Cars or Guns?
Not all guns are created to kill people. Yes, real assault weapons used on battlefields are designed to kill but their civilian semi auto less powerful counterparts are designed for target shooting and hunting.
Guns that are legally available to civilians are designed for hunting and target shooting. These guns could be compared to a bow and arrow that are also designed for hunting and target shooting but of course they could also be used in an illegal way to hurt or kill someone at a distance.
Why would anyone want to own a sword when those were designed to kill? Well some practice martial arts with them while others appreciate the historical angle.
I own a fast car which is actually a street legal race car. The gas peddle is to be respected but at any moment I could really step on it and break all sorts of laws and as I am skidding sideways like so many auto ads feature their cars doing in slow motion I could easily flip my car into a school bus filled with kids. Who is to blame and sue in that situation? The kids on the bus or me considering that I built the car?
I still think it is a stretch to sue Remington even if it was one of their products that was used in an illegal manner by a deranged maniac to murder.
We all know it is a bad idea to drink and drive yet every beer ad on TV reminds us to "drink responsibly". We all know driving our cars like they do in movies and TV ads is a bad idea yet in the credits/fine print they will say "do not attempt" "...a professional on a closed course".
Maybe people do need to be reminded that shooting people is bad and if you do so you might kill them.
These Leftist Courts and Judges get “Slapped Down” on a regular basis — But that is meaningless unless there are Serious Consequences to the offending Judges and the Lawyers that push these Lawsuits.
Your response is hypothetical nonsense. Freeman in America would never allow your scenario to occur.
And, yet... it answered the concerns of the person I was responding to. Making the argument that gun laws cannot be enacted because it might somehow slow down firearm production and harm the military is specious, at best.
I don't care if reasonable, sane, responsible people own guns.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Pssshh... get outta here. Even if there were no guns available to the public, the military would always have someone manufacturing them.
Nobody's counting on anyone but the actual military to have weapons. The Joint Chiefs are not sitting around worried that Steve from Skokie can or cannot buy a rifle.
The military relies on the same manufacturers as those producing arms for civilians. It's a national security threat to lose that manufacturing capacity. The military needs to have large manufacturers available. That is why the federal law passed that forbids these lawsuits.
What kills more people everyday in America, Cars or Guns?
Not all guns are created to kill people. Yes, real assault weapons used on battlefields are designed to kill but their civilian semi auto less powerful counterparts are designed for target shooting and hunting.
Guns that are legally available to civilians are designed for hunting and target shooting. These guns could be compared to a bow and arrow that are also designed for hunting and target shooting but of course they could also be used in an illegal way to hurt or kill someone at a distance.
Why would anyone want to own a sword when those were designed to kill? Well some practice martial arts with them while others appreciate the historical angle.
I own a fast car which is actually a street legal race car. The gas peddle is to be respected but at any moment I could really step on it and break all sorts of laws and as I am skidding sideways like so many auto ads feature their cars doing in slow motion I could easily flip my car into a school bus filled with kids. Who is to blame and sue in that situation? The kids on the bus or me considering that I built the car?
I still think it is a stretch to sue Remington even if it was one of their products that was used in an illegal manner by a deranged maniac to murder.
We all know it is a bad idea to drink and drive yet every beer ad on TV reminds us to "drink responsibly". We all know driving our cars like they do in movies and TV ads is a bad idea yet in the credits/fine print they will say "do not attempt" "...a professional on a closed course".
Maybe people do need to be reminded that shooting people is bad and if you do so you might kill them.
Remington needs a disclaimer not a lawsuit.
The last sentence is the only one you needed.
It doesn't matter if people get killed in cars (I mean, their lives obviously do matter, but I'm speaking to the "cars as weapons" argument). Car manufacturers work daily to ensure that fewer people who drive and ride in cars are killed in accidents because cars are a necessity for travel in a good many places.
It matters that gun manufacturers take responsibility for the fact that they create machines designed to kill. Yes, you can use them for other purposes, but they are designed to KILL.
People. Animals. They are designed to kill them.
So, advertising and safety protocols are of paramount importance. I would like to see the day that guns are imprinted to the hand(s) of the owner(s) so they won't even fire without the right person's hand on them.
That would be a huge safety improvement and worth the money.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The military relies on the same manufacturers as those producing arms for civilians. It's a national security threat to lose that manufacturing capacity. The military needs to have large manufacturers available. That is why the federal law passed that forbids these lawsuits.
I disagree. Our government can prop up manufacturing of guns that they need. We could have an actual, federal gun manufacturing plant if we needed one.
Now, I am fine with there being multiple manufacturers. I am not remotely anti-gun. I am just anti- the notion that gun manufacturers should accept zero responsibility for the death machines they manufacture.
And, guns are weapons intended to kill. That's just reality.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I disagree. Our government can prop up manufacturing of guns that they need. We could have an actual, federal gun manufacturing plant if we needed one.
Now, I am fine with there being multiple manufacturers. I am not remotely anti-gun. I am just anti- the notion that gun manufacturers should accept zero responsibility for the death machines they manufacture.
And, guns are weapons intended to kill. That's just reality.
It's not the manufacturer's responsibility if someone uses their product illegally. Using that train of thought, makers of alcoholic drinks could be sued everytime someone uses their products illegally and kills someone.
This is likely to land in the federal courts and the federal law forbidding these lawsuits will likely be applied and the lawsuit tossed.
I disagree. Our government can prop up manufacturing of guns that they need. We could have an actual, federal gun manufacturing plant if we needed one.
Now, I am fine with there being multiple manufacturers. I am not remotely anti-gun. I am just anti- the notion that gun manufacturers should accept zero responsibility for the death machines they manufacture.
And, guns are weapons intended to kill. That's just reality.
It would never happen. Why do you persist with such a far-fetched scenario?
I doubt anyone sues gun manufacturers for adverts that show guns and hunting going together.
Especially if the people in the ad are wearing safety gear, orange hats/vests, etc.
But, advertise a gun pointed at a noise in your house at night and then when someone gets shot by accident in a house at night? You might get sued.
It's about associating one thing with the other. Do people drink and drive? Sure they do. You just don't want to associate the two. Even if a luxury car conjures images of people in fine clothes and jewels, out on the town drinking champagne.
Your racing example is a tough one because unless you advertise a car as suitable for drag racing, then someone dies trying to drag race in your car, you're probably not going to be open to litigation. People need to use accelerator pedals while driving cars.
It doesn't matter what people "associate" guns with. The truth is guns are a legal option for legal activity, like self-defense.
You cannot sue because you don't like that other people have the legal and natural right of self-defense, regardless of the method they use to accomplish that defense. Could be a knife, a bat, judo lessons, a frying pan. Don't be ridiculous.
I think your gun grabbing fetish has caused some delusional thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
"Self-defense" is a tricky marketing tactic with firearms. It instantly implies the use of deadly force against other human beings.
You could probably advertise self-defense in a woodland setting where there are mountain lions and bears nearby, but advertising it in suburbia is going to be problematic.
And, sure, it's not illegal for parents to buy guns for kids, but it's probably not smart, either.
Teach kids gun safety? Sure. Buy them their own gun? Seems best to wait until they're old enough to legally buy their own.
Teens are unstable, emotionally speaking.
Self defense is a natural and legal right. You cannot infringe on that, its not "tricky" in any way, except that you leftist gun grabbers think its a way to attack constitutional rights, as if there were some loophole that if you get hysterical and make outlandish claims and demonize self-defense you can just violate the law.
Well there is not. That's why we have the Constitution in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finalmove
It would never happen. Why do you persist with such a far-fetched scenario?
Because they're hysterical. They don't like not being able to control other people, so they say whatever they can in the hopes they will get to. They're sick, is the issue. Its some kind of mental disorder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
