Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
I....agree with Gas on this. To an extent. Handguns, long rifles, and shotguns certainly have their uses outside of killing people. "Automatic" or automatic style weapons do NOT. So the ability to sue for me depends completely on the weapon used.

And no, I'm not getting into the whole 2nd Amendment thing.
You don't get to basically make a statement that disregards the 2nd amendment and then say you're not getting into it. The second amendment is not about hunting, or even home defense (which DOES involve killing people).

I'm just saying that certain weapons - like cigarettes - when used properly for their intended use, kill people. That is their only function.
And? So what? Ice cream's only function is to deliver high calorie fats into the body, does that mean I can sue them for my obesity?

And I'm only giving handguns a pass because of target shooting.
Then you have to give ALL guns a pass because of target shooting.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
1,918 861 14
No, I'm saying that if the crimes were perpetrated using an assault weapon or an assault-style weapon that has no other uses than killing humans, the company should be able to be sued. But if the weapon was a long rifle, shotgun, or handgun the company should be exempt.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
Then my counter to this is should tobacco/vape pen companies be allowed to target their product at teenagers again? They were successfully (and justifiably) sued for doing this over and over again, to the point where we literally tax them to make advertisements against using their product by said teenagers.
Show me where Remington advertised their gun as "this is great for mass shootings, especially in schools" and I'll agree the two situations are comperable.

But that's not what happened.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
No, I'm saying that if the crimes were perpetrated using an assault weapon or an assault-style weapon that has no other uses than killing humans, the company should be able to be sued. But if the weapon was a long rifle, shotgun, or handgun the company should be exempt.
Putting aside the complete and utter intellectual bankruptcy of this position, you'll never be able to get a legal standard for what gun is meant to "only" kill humans because it's literally possible to target shoot/hunt with all of them.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
Intellectually bankrupt = anything Gas disagrees with.
The 2nd amendment (sorry if you "don't want to get into it") is specifically about ensuring that killing people is possible, and in certain situations justifiable. Hence, a gun that is "only for killing people" is a valid product, even though that standard is literally applicable to zero guns.

So yes, your stance is intellectually bankrupt, just as much so as when congress went through a catalog and picked out which guns and accessories looked "scary" for their assault weapons ban in the 90s.

Furthermore, this sets a standard that undermines the concept that a PERSON is responsible for his own actions. Hence, "it's not my fault I'm fat, I'll sue the ice creamery and the spoon manufacturer." That's the last thing we need to be doing, ever.
 
Reactions
745 42 1
Show me where Remington advertised their gun as "this is great for mass shootings, especially in schools" and I'll agree the two situations are comperable.

But that's not what happened.
I couldn't even begin to approach such an argument because the information regarding such business practices would be protected information under the law. You'd need a court order to get such information for use in an on-going...

Oh hey, wait. That's EXACTLY what this lawsuit is doing. It's almost like your argument is "They shouldn't be able to do this because then they'd be able to get the information they need to succeed in the suit."

The 2nd amendment (sorry if you "don't want to get into it") is specifically about ensuring that killing is possible, and justifiable. Hence, a gun that is "only for killing people" is a valid product, even though that standard is literally applicable to zero guns.
I actually agree with this: the fact that Remington is selling a device meant to kill things isn't enough reason to sue them. But it's not improper for them to defend the methods and means by which they've decided to sell such a product, considering we do this for literally everything else on the market.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
I couldn't even begin to approach such an argument because the information regarding such business practices would be protected information under the law. You'd need a court order to get such information for use in an on-going...

Oh hey, wait. That's EXACTLY what this lawsuit is doing. It's almost like your argument is "They shouldn't be able to do this because then they'd be able to get the information they need to succeed in the suit."
So if nobody knows what their advertising is (and I have to admit I've not seen a remington ad myself in over a decade, and that was probably in a magazine), how are they asserting they're targeting anybody in particular? The burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, after all.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
I went and found some info on the ads in question.

They say things like "Someone with an AR-15 single handedly outnumbers opponents," and that "opposition bows down to the AR-15," and that "your man card has just been reissued."

The grounds of their assertion is that this is targeting unstable individuals.

So basically, anything masculine or effective is unstable?
 
Last edited:
Reactions
635 236 4
So if nobody knows what their advertising is (and I have to admit I've not seen a remington ad myself in over a decade, and that was probably in a magazine), how are they asserting they're targeting anybody in particular? The burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, after all.
They must have something.

The article posted earlier says the Supreme Court, after rejecting the lawsuit for one reason, has okayed the current attempt:

But the narrowly divided Supreme Court judges rejected that theory in a 4-3 ruling, instead saying the families could bring their claims under a different exemption to the 2005 federal shield law, basing it on a Connecticut consumer protection statute.
 
Reactions
635 236 4
I went and found some info on the ads in question.

They say things like "Someone with an AR-15 single handedly outnumbers opponents," and that "opposition bows down to the AR-15," and that "your man card has just been reissued."

The grounds of their assertion is that this is targeting unstable individuals.

So basically, anything masculine is unstable?
Well, that's up to the judge, is what the lawsuit is all about.
 
Reactions
1,616 296 4
Then I amend the question - so basically anything masculine or effective is unstable?
They say things like "Someone with an AR-15 single handedly outnumbers opponents," and that "opposition bows down to the AR-15,"

So in your opinion, what are the opponents/opposition you are outnumbering in this ad?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
They say things like "Someone with an AR-15 single handedly outnumbers opponents," and that "opposition bows down to the AR-15,"

So in your opinion, what are the opponents/opposition you are outnumbering in this ad?
To me, it's the clear implication that they are people with guns other than AR-15s.
 
Reactions
418 123 1
I don’t feel like someone’s age, gender, or race should be held against them when running for office.

—Patrick
I think you can make an argument for age if a person's age is so advanced that there is a significantly higher-than-normal chance of death while in office. Be honest: would you hesitate to elect someone who is, say, 105 years old? If the answer is yes, then the principle is sound and people just have to decide where they draw the line.

But y'all already enshrine age discrimination for Presidential candidates.
 
Reactions
616 77 10
I went and found some info on the ads in question.

They say things like "Someone with an AR-15 single handedly outnumbers opponents," and that "opposition bows down to the AR-15," and that "your man card has just been reissued."

The grounds of their assertion is that this is targeting unstable individuals.

So basically, anything masculine or effective is unstable?

Ah, yes shooting people, that's so manly and effective...

Also, on a completely unrelated note, i wonder why school shootings happen so often in the US.... truly a mystery.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
The tobacco industry was mostly busted for their advertising being misleading (IE, downplaying the dangers of cigarettes). I don't see Remington's ads downplaying the deadliness of their products - if anything, they're overselling it.

Again, though, assuming the advertising isn't misleading, should Blue Bell Creameries be held legally responsible for obesity given that their ads are WAY more persuasive than any gun manufacturer's? :p
 
Reactions
2,030 602 22
Maybe I wasn’t clear when I said it should not be held against them when RUNNING for office.
In order to run for President, you have to be age 35, sure. You can make the argument that this constitutes discrimination, but we already have similar requirements for gating off other risky activities like voting, drinking, smoking, driving, etc.
I think you can make an argument for age if a person's age is so advanced that there is a significantly higher-than-normal chance of death while in office. Be honest: would you hesitate to elect someone who is, say, 105 years old? If the answer is yes, then the principle is sound and people just have to decide where they draw the line.
Well of course I would look more carefully at a candidate of such advanced age when deciding who I will vote for, but I don’t think that should automatically disqualify them from running.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
240 34 1
Again, though, assuming the advertising isn't misleading, should Blue Bell Creameries be held legally responsible for obesity given that their ads are WAY more persuasive than any gun manufacturer's? :p
I think for this to be an apt comparison you'd need to buy the ice cream & that then makes Joe Bloggs obese.
 
Reactions
302 53 1
I mean, I can accept that for the second line, but I still think that first one is pretty sketchy.
I actually disagree here. Opposition, especially in todays parlance, often means political. It feels very dog whistle to me, but that might be because my view isn't colored by one way it is said.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
2,113 302 4
The tobacco industry was mostly busted for their advertising being misleading (IE, downplaying the dangers of cigarettes). I don't see Remington's ads downplaying the deadliness of their products - if anything, they're overselling it.

Again, though, assuming the advertising isn't misleading, should Blue Bell Creameries be held legally responsible for obesity given that their ads are WAY more persuasive than any gun manufacturer's? :p
I think the better comparison would be alcohol companies and ads that promoted the abuse of alcohol. There have been cases where advertisements have been restricted or criticized for promoting drunkenness, or other forms of abuse. The question is, did the gun companies promote the misuse of firearms with their advertisements? In "overselling" their rifles, did they promote the idea of using their product in an immoral or illegal manner?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
6,496 1,353 27
I actually disagree here. Opposition, especially in todays parlance, often means political. It feels very dog whistle to me, but that might be because my view isn't colored by one way it is said.
Opposition is also the preferred military term for "bad guys with guns" because they got raked over the coals 15 years ago for calling them "bad guys" where a reporter could hear it.
 
Reactions
2,030 602 22
I think for this to be an apt comparison you'd need to buy the ice cream & that then makes Joe Bloggs obese.
I think in order for it to be an apt comparison, the ice cream company would have to be sued because someone was murdering people by stuffing their ice cream down people’s throats, and that somehow the ice cream company should be liable for that.

Ok, so NAL and all that, but the ads only appear to claim that their weapon is superior to other similar weapons (by virtue of being a derivative of a design selected by the U. S. Military), and not that their weapon is “the one used by all the coolest kids,” nor do they show anything like, “even a teen could hold off a dozen attackers.” No glorification, no fantasy sequence, nothing to suggest that the preferred customer for their product is one who is underage, unstable, or who intends to cause mayhem. The plaintiff is going to have a very hard time convincing a judge that Remington deliberately sowed the idea of a massacre into the boy’s head.

Really, even if the gun mfr really had promoted their product to children, unless the extra magazines/accessories/ammo/etc. were all included in the box with the weapon, then a guilty verdict would mean the ammo company is also liable, as are the company that made the extra magazines (though this could be Remington again), the manufacturer of any bag or sling used to carry it, even the manufacturer of the car he drove to the school could be swept into the suit simply “...they were all used in the commission of a murder.”

I really don’t see this case as anything other than some folks with a grudge taking advantage of the emotions of a high-profile event and a grieving group of people to give those folks the justification to continue to lay siege to their hated enemies, consequences be damned, and the only reason they’re trying it at all is because they feel the current climate is one where emotions are running high enough that they might be able to sway a judge/jury to pass a ruling (any ruling!) that finally goes their way so they can use it as a toehold to try and tear down the rest. I mean, even the notion that this kid “would never have massacred if only the evil gun mfrs hadn’t put the idea into his innocent little head” is patently ludicrous when it’s not surrounded by all the hype.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
1,063 339 5
I'm pretty happy watching AOC embarrassing veteran lawmakers by showing up prepared to all the committees she's a part of. Something, apparently, no one does.
 
Reactions
575 247 11
Actually, if you go away from banning to just suing the pants off the manufacturer, you can do wonders. I mean, ask RJ Reynolds how that worked for them...
 
Reactions
2,030 602 22
Yeah. No gun ad convinced this kid to shoot anybody.
This whole thing sounds the same as when someone blames the controller because they can’t get past world 4-2, except that they’re doubling down by suing the controller manufacturer because “...it can’t possibly be the fault of the PLAYER,” right?

—Patrick
 
Reactions
1,063 339 5
Handguns....certainly have their uses outside of killing people.
Nope, unless you count practicing killing people as a use besides killing people. I, myself, am extremely practiced at killing people. I am a decorated practiced killer.
 
Top