The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Sommerswerd]

Yeahhhh, I agree. Maybe I'd get excited for crab legs. The sea is very far away. I don't think I've ever wasted space at a GC on their steak. They have strawberries and a chocolate fountain. I mean, seriously!

My Dad used to talk about that... how growing up in Ohio, the ocean, was just... it wasn't part of their lives. "Swimming" was finding a deep mud puddle/pond somewhere. Seafood was not a thing for him growing up.

I've had the infamous Popeye's Chicken Sandwich. I will say... its a fine sandwich, certainly the best fast-food crispy chicken sandwich I can remember having... but worth getting stabbed to death over? Not so much.

You don't have to win to fight. Sometimes winning is the least important aspect.

A fair point. And one that has been made over and over, even recently.

And I guess those folks at Golden Corral might agree with you. Nobody was getting any steak. The fight was the point.

 

[Farm Boy]

Heheheh. Yeah. I suppose it was. I fled a McDonald's once in Peoria. The fight was the point there too. When the child's seat cleared three tables, we left. Quietly and quickly.

 

[Samson]

Sandy Hook families reach $73m settlement with gunmaker

The closely watched legal case is the first time a US gun manufacturer agrees to pay damages in a mass shooting.

The families of nine victims of a 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut have agreed to settle a lawsuit against the manufacturer of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used to massacre 20 six- and seven-year-old students and six educators.

Remington agreed in the settlement to allow the families to release thousands of documents they obtained during the lawsuit, including ones showing how it marketed the weapon.

“This case was never about damages in the sense of compensation. It was about damages in the sense of forcing change,” Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the families said at a media conference announcing the settlement on Tuesday.

The civil court case in Connecticut focused on how the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used by the Newtown attacker was marketed to younger, at-risk males, including through product placement in violent video games. In one of Remington’s ads, it features the rifle against a plain backdrop and the phrase: “Consider Your Man Card Reissued”.

Remington, which filed for bankruptcy twice during the lawsuit, had argued there was no evidence showing its marketing had anything to do with the shooting. Initially, the company’s lawyers had claimed the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of a federal law that gives broad immunity to the gun industry.

But the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle. The gunmaker appealed to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

The case was watched by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and gun manufacturers across the country because it may provide a road map for victims of other mass shootings to sue the makers of firearms under state laws instead of federal law.

“The immunity protecting the gun industry is not bulletproof,” Koskoff said, adding that the settlement “shattered” the perception that gunmakers are shielded from liability.
​

Children and parents leave Sandy Hook Elementary School

 

[IglooDame]

It's not really Remington anymore, given that the company declared bankruptcy in mid 2020. But anyway. Good verdict. If Juul and whoever it was flooding the market with opioids should be held liable for the negative results of their unethical marketing and sales strategies, so should gun manufacturers.

 

[Farm Boy]

You swallowed that so easily? That just put down precedent that playing a 'Violent Video Game' makes you an "at-risk male" for murder.

Woof.

 

[Samson]

You swallowed that so easily? That just put down precedent that playing a 'Violent Video Game' makes you an "at-risk male" for murder.

Woof.

Well looking at the news being a young male does seem to be a statistical risk, and I do not have evidence but playing FPS is probably correlated with being a young male.

[EDIT] Found this:

202 shooters
Some of these mass shooters were known to have violent tendencies or criminal pasts. Others seemed largely fine until they attacked. All but 5 were male. The vast majority were between the ages of 20 and 49.
​

Spoiler Less relevant but interesting :

Source

 

[IglooDame]

You swallowed that so easily? That just put down precedent that playing a 'Violent Video Game' makes you an "at-risk male" for murder.

Woof.

Juries gonna jury.

 

[Farm Boy]

Okidoki then.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You swallowed that so easily? That just put down precedent that playing a 'Violent Video Game' makes you an "at-risk male" for murder.

Woof.

I agree, the video game thing makes me a little itchy. It reminds me of Tipper Gore going after rock & roll in the '80s. But if the point that the advertising was the problem is emphasized and sticks, then I think something good can come from it. I mean, "Consider your man-card reissued"? Are they [forking] kidding me? We were just talking about that [stink] in the other thread, the guy who shot several people in Denver. Obviously, there was more going on with that guy than just a twisted version of masculinity, but that was definitely one ingredient in the murder-stew. Remington can suck it. If I get a chance to piddle on their grave, I'll do it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sounds like you're the one arguing the identity problem if it's its actionability under law that you're pleased with.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Sounds like you're the one arguing the identity problem if it's its actionability under law that you're pleased with.

I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing the identity problem", but one of the things I'm hoping for, wrt guns, is the day when we can stop being [kittens] and own up to the fact that guns are purpose-built to kill, and certain guns are purpose-built to kill people. I think this settlement is perhaps a step in that direction. One of my initial reactions to news of this settlement was "well, let's see if anything changes", and I'm not very optimistic, in that regard. But you never know. Sometimes positive change happens unexpectedly quickly.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course they are. That's why they're guns. That's why they're protected. Because they're guns. Your right to a kitten, is not. Because it's a kitten.

But yes. It seems you do want to make a culture that allows young men to shoot guns and play video games actionable, if this is a pleasing verdict. You like video games, you say that part makes you itchy... but they're a sacrifice you're willing to make? Maybe? The world culture swung pretty hard against gaming this past year, maybe it's the zeitgeist?

 

[EgonSpengler]

Of course they are. That's why they're guns. That's why they're protected. Because they're guns. Your right to a kitten, is not. Because it's a kitten.

But yes. It seems you do want to make a culture that allows young men to shoot guns and play video games actionable, if this is a pleasing verdict. You like video games, you say that part makes you itchy... but they're a sacrifice you're willing to make? Maybe? The world culture swung pretty hard against gaming this past year, maybe it's the zeitgeist?

What am I hypothetically sacrificing here? Culture is swinging hard against gaming? Microsoft just bought Activision-Blizzard for 69 billion dollars. (That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if I'm not in tune with the zeitgeist. I'm usually not. )

EDIT: But take out the video games part for a moment, yes, I absolutely want a society in which young men (or anybody else) shooting guns is actionable. Kyle Rittenhouse was a dumb kid who shouldn't have been within a mile of a gun, and some people would have me believe that he's some kind of hero. I would call that a joke, except two people are dead.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle.

Complete trash. Apply that standard generally, and business can't function. This is an irresponsible ruling in defiance not only of the 2nd amendment, but of due process. The same logic could be applied to sue the stuffing out of big tech, food manufacturers, alcohol providers, list goes on and on.

Remington does not have a plausible causal chain to the shooting. If it did, we should expect an enormous quantity of similar shootings, which we did not observe.

I agree, the video game thing makes me a little itchy. It reminds me of Tipper Gore going after rock & roll in the '80s. But if the point that the advertising was the problem is emphasized and sticks, then I think something good can come from it.

No good can come from false causal attributions. At best, you can luck into avoiding tremendous harm. At worst, it's a modern day witch hunt, in the Salem sense where bad outcomes were falsely attributed to people who did not meaningfully contribute to them.

If Juul and whoever it was flooding the market with opioids should be held liable for the negative results of their unethical marketing and sales strategies

If you lie about the product and those lies result in adverse consequences, you do not have a false attribution of cause. But it stretches plausibility to assert that people aren't broadly aware of the function of firearms. Sandy Hook didn't happen because the gun malfunctioned, or because the shooter was given to believe he was firing nerf bullets.

 

[EgonSpengler]

No good can come from false causal attributions. At best, you can luck into avoiding tremendous harm. At worst, it's a modern day witch hunt, in the Salem sense where bad outcomes were falsely attributed to people who did not meaningfully contribute to them.

If you're talking about video games, I think I agree. I think that's what makes me itchy. If you're talking about Remington's marketing of guns, I think I disagree.

If you lie about the product and those lies result in adverse consequences, you do not have a false attribution of cause. But it stretches plausibility to assert that people aren't broadly aware of the function of firearms. Sandy Hook didn't happen because the gun malfunctioned, or because the shooter was given to believe he was firing nerf bullets.

I don't think you mean it this way, but yes, that's more or less how I feel about it too. When Remington says "Consider your man card reissued" as a marketing slogan for the AR-15, I think they know exactly what they're saying and exactly who they're talking to. In that sense, I suppose, it's very clever marketing, a lot like Virginia Slims and Marlboro's brilliant campaigns to sell product that, when used correctly, kills the user.


EDIT: Also, speaking as a man, Remington can take that marketing slogan and shove it up their...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you're talking about video games, I think I agree. I think that's what makes me itchy. If you're talking about Remington's marketing of guns, I think I disagree.

I don't see how you're deriving causal attribution differently between cases.

I don't think you mean it this way, but yes, that's more or less how I feel about it too. When Remington says "Consider your man card reissued" as a marketing slogan for the AR-15, I think they know exactly what they're saying and exactly who they're talking to.

Having a "man card" (which isn't actually real by the way) does not imply mass murder, even if you assume it to be real. I don't think I've ever heard a context for "man card" whereby "mass murder of children" was something that having one encourages, either.

The concept of a "man card" is stupid...but it does not imply or cause mass murder.

a lot like Virginia Slims and Marlboro's brilliant campaigns to sell product that, when used correctly, kills the user.

You actually can trace a causal relation between smoking and adverse health effects, though, in a way that "video games" --> "violence" or "man card" --> "mass murder" don't follow. If these companies continued to claim otherwise (as they did for many decades historically), they would be lying to consumers and should be liable for that.

That is not a comparable scenario to Remington. Remington was not sued for non-performance wrt delivering a "man card". They were sued for false attribution of cause for mass murder.

 

[Farm Boy]

What am I hypothetically sacrificing here? Culture is swinging hard against gaming? Microsoft just bought Activision-Blizzard for 69 billion dollars. (That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if I'm not in tune with the zeitgeist. I'm usually not. )

EDIT: But take out the video games part for a moment, yes, I absolutely want a society in which young men (or anybody else) shooting guns is actionable. Kyle Rittenhouse was a dumb kid who shouldn't have been within a mile of a gun, and some people would have me believe that he's some kind of hero. I would call that a joke, except two people are dead.

Alright. Total opposition, then, to the extent that personal respect is possible. I, and millions, had unsupervised rifle time as minors. The basics of shooting and safe handling start at 10 or younger. Shooting some person is already actionable. But you need the marketing, you need the culture because you don't like the exceptions. No guns for those no goods with the high risk vidya games. That argument goes in the bin with the same about South Chicago.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I missed the Rittenhouse comment earlier. The gun did its job there. That outcome was preferable to any of those people beating the crap out of him/hospitalizing him.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't see how you're deriving causal attribution differently between cases.

Is there actually a case about real-world violence being attributed to video games? I was just talking about the reference to video games in the article above, and the possibility that some nitwit might suggest the connection in an effort to downplay the role of the real gun.

Having a "man card" (which isn't actually real by the way) does not imply mass murder, even if you assume it to be real. I don't think I've ever heard a context for "man card" whereby "mass murder of children" was something that having one encourages, either.

The concept of a "man card" is stupid...but it does not imply or cause mass murder.

Okay, well done, I regret bringing up the "man card" thing now. It's not about the "man card", it's about the AR-15.

You actually can trace a causal relation between smoking and adverse health effects, though, in a way that "video games" --> "violence" or "man card" --> "mass murder" don't follow. If these companies continued to claim otherwise (as they did for many decades historically), they would be lying to consumers and should be liable for that.

I don't know why you're focusing on video games and the "man card." The link they're drawing, if I understand the case correctly, is between weapons clearly intended for violence against people and violence against people.

Alright. Total opposition, then, to the extent that personal respect is possible. I, and millions, had unsupervised rifle time as minors. The basics of shooting and safe handling start at 10 or younger. Shooting some person is already actionable. But you need the marketing, you need the culture because you don't like the exceptions. No guns for those no goods with the high risk vidya games. That argument goes in the bin with the same about South Chicago.

I'm curious why you had unsupervised rifle time as a kid, but don't feel obliged to answer if you don't want to. Just curiosity. But I'm assuming your guns were for hunting animals, and that you learned to hunt animals? (If you literally mean that you were training to shoot people, using guns designed for shooting people, at age 10, then I guess that's a different conversation. And here again I'm setting aside the video games. I'm not sure why that became a focus. I also don't know what the argument about South Chicago is.)

I missed the Rittenhouse comment earlier. The gun did its job there.

Yes, bingo. Anyone who points an AR-15 at a human being, pulls the trigger and kills their target isn't misusing it; and the gun functioned correctly, perhaps even perfectly.

That outcome was preferable to any of those people beating the crap out of him/hospitalizing him.

I'll have to think about that, but it's a moot point, because those weren't the only two possible outcomes. He put himself in that situation, for starters. And I will hazard a guess that when confronted, he didn't attempt to extricate himself or do anything to de-escalate. I haven't read the trial transcripts, if they're available, so that's just a guess.

 

[Lexicus]

Is there actually a case about real-world violence being attributed to video games? I was just talking about the reference to video games in the article above, and the possibility that some nitwit might suggest the connection in an effort to downplay the role of the real gun.

Video games were mentioned in the article Samson posted, but not in the context of the shooter playing video games; the reason they were mentioned is that gunmakers use product placement in video games to market their guns.

There was no suggestion that playing violent video games should be grounds to forbid someone from having a gun. There is no "precedent" for such established by this verdict. This is Farm Boy either not reading carefully or just making stuff up.

Okay, well done, I regret bringing up the "man card" thing now. It's not about the "man card", it's about the AR-15.

Not well done. A number of these mass shootings have been carried out by incels who told us they were doing it to (re)claim what can certainly be referred to as a "man card." And you are absolutely right to say that Remington marketing a gun as a "man card" is basically Remington encouraging these people to commit mass murder.