Are Firearm Companies Liable for the Aftermath of Shootings?
The Supreme Court will decide by the rule of four whether to grant a writ of certiorari for the families of the Sandy Hook victims against the manufacturers of Remington Firearms. The families of the Sandy Hook victims are hoping that the Supreme Court will hear their case, and find gun companies liable for shootings based on how they market their product.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce passed in 2005 protects gun manufacturers from being liable from crimes that involve their products. The families claim that Remington was advertising to disturbed young men. They also claim they used the military and incited violence in their advertising for one of their rifles.
This is ruling can have a huge impact on the firearms industry and second amendment rights. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case they can reverse one of the gun industries biggest wins in legislation. Also the NRA has said that the law will make the firearm industry disappear.
This is ruling can have a huge impact on the firearms industry and second amendment rights. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case they can reverse one of the gun industries biggest wins in legislation. Also the NRA has said that the law will make the firearm industry disappear.
If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case it can be very controversial with the court, and the outcome can have a very big impact on second amendment rights. If the Supreme Court rules that firearm manufacturers are liable for shootings it will become very difficult for firearm companies to sell their products. Also it will set precedent for further cases that can eventually cause the firearm industry to run out of business.
1. What would be the benefits to having firearm manufacturers be liable for the aftermath of shootings?
2. Would it be successful to restrict marketing techniques of firearm manufactures in order to prevent mass shootings?
3. Would Trump be considered more of a success with the right if the Supreme Court heard the case and decided to not rule in favor of the Sandy Hook families?
I do not think it is realistic to have firearm manufacturers be liable for the aftermath of shootings. There are many factors that go into each shooting, and the blame cannot simply be placed on the manufacturers of firearms. That would be an oversimplification of all of the variables that contribute to a mass shooting. However, if firearm manufacturers were liable, it would very likely decrease the overall amount of mass shootings, as they would do extremely strict background checks for people who buy guns, and far fewer guns would be sold overall. This would prevent very dangerous weapons such as semi-automatic assault weapons from being widely distributed, and it would be effective in preventing mass shootings. However, it would be opposed by the NRA and many Americans who place much importance upon their right to bear arms.
ReplyDeleteI think that making firearm manufacturers liable for improper usage of the guns they sell would be a poor attempt at trying to control gun usage. Given the problem at hand, directly addressing the ways in which people get guns and the ways in which they are controlled would be much more effective. While the manufacturers may advertise their products using violence, they are not directly responsible for any harm that may be incurred, it is those who shoot the guns that should be held liable. The only way to truly limit the use of guns is to place bans on the more dangerous versions including assault rifles and other guns made for war.
ReplyDelete-Ben Neuman
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I think that having firearm manufacturers be liable for the aftermath of the shooting would lead to manufacturers making their products safer and also better tracking where their products are sold. It would also push manufacturers to stop supplying stores that sell a lot of guns that end up being used in crimes. However, I don't think it is realistic to hold gun makers liable for the criminal misuse of a properly functioning product.
ReplyDelete2) There isn't many marketing techniques or marketing at all that I have seen for firearms, and even if there were, I do not believe that to be the root of the issue (for school shootings). I believe that a more effective way of reducing and trying to prevent school shootings is focusing on student's mental health, and trying to address this area of the issue rather than the guns. The gun doesn't decide to kill others, the mentally ill student does. (I am not saying guns are not an issue! I just think the student's mental health should be prioritized over an object).
ReplyDeleteHolding firearm manufacturers responsible following shootings does little to solve our problem with firearms. Manufacturers of firearms work within U.S. regulations to market weapons to the U.S. public. To say that a gun manufacturer is responsible for deaths of citizens when it is within the law is idiotic. When people hold gun manufacturers responsible, they must also take into account how guns save lives which, seldom happens
ReplyDeleteRestricting marketing techniques of gun manufacturers represents a violation of our first amendment right. The U.S. should not be able to limit our freedom if it wishes to prevent a broad scope of government that will outstretch itself into limitation of speech in other areas. The precedent of our first amendment must be preserved even today.
Anytime there is a pushback of people following a shooting, it tends to be directed at the NRA. Trump likely would be blamed following Sandy Hook if the NRA held out. However, he would likely be seen as a success among libertarians and generally educated members of the right who have a mindset for preservation of precedent.
This arguement is irrational and would do nothing to curb gun violence in the US. The idea that gun companies should be liable for shootings is ridiculous. I believe the issue of mass shootings and school shootings is a generational problem that can only be addressed by treating the cause of the shootings like treating mental health and imposing much stricter background checks.
ReplyDelete3. I don't think Trump would be considered more of a success with the right if the SCOTUS heard the case and ruled in favor of fire arm companies. Americans generally don't credit Supreme Court decisions to presidents. I think far right media sources would try to spin it in a way that makes Trump look good, but in reality most people don't even think there are two valid sides to this case - it does not make sense (logically or constitutionally) to blame gun manufacturers for school shootings.
ReplyDelete2.Restricting certain marketing techniques are unlikely to have any sort of effect on preventing mass shootings. Mass shootings have typically carried out by those with declining mental health, so limiting ads isn't going to do much there. Additionally, I think it's safe to say that most shooters don't obtain their guns after seeing an advertisement for them. The only way to prevent these sort of events is to make obtaining the weapon, not advertising it, difficult.
ReplyDelete1. What would be the benefits to having firearm manufacturers be liable for the aftermath of shootings?
ReplyDeleteThe benefits would be that the Gun manufacturing would fund more programs to administer who buys their gun, show their advertising not so applying in violence more education. It would problem show more of what it is used. It would also make interest groups about guns be more invested in laws that would make screening of the people who buy it more strictur for them to not get sued. Although they would also try to find another loophole to not be accounted for.
2. Would it be successful to restrict marketing techniques of firearm manufacturers in order to prevent mass shootings?
It would help in this way, but not significantly due to the rules of purchasing the guns easily (Walmart) to then getting it registered. In addition there is no measure of security or strong implementation to prevent people with mental health purchase a gun. In fact in with the laws that supervise the gun registry, there are still gun sold and pass on with private transaction that doesn’t involve the government.
3. Would Trump be considered more of a success with the right if the Supreme Court heard the case and decided to not rule in favor of the Sandy Hook families?
If he tweets every day sladering the ruling and maybe some of the supreme court justices, maybe. To be honest, even if he wasn’t considered successful for the ruling, he will still take credit for it.
1. By having firearm companies be liable for the damage caused by their products, the companies are forced to take into account the possible negative effects of what they are selling, and therefore will probably be more careful. Their products will be rebranded to be safer for the public, and it would be in the best interests of the company to provide their customers with background checks or some sort of buffer in order to make sure that the product they are selling will not cause any harm. There might be a financial strain for these companies, but having the strain or even the threat of the strain will definitely incentivize firearm companies to be more careful about what they sell to who.
ReplyDeleteThe benefits of having this case heard on the Supreme Court and having firearms companies liable will see a huge dip in murders but specifically, murders during mass shootings. Many democracies around the world have established very strict gun laws in countries like Australia and Japan have resulted in very low amounts of homicides overall and little to no mass shootings. While many of those who are supportive of the second amendment or part of the NRA would be against the ruling it would greatly benefit the homicide rates in the U.S.
ReplyDelete1. What would be the benefits to having firearm manufacturers be liable for the aftermath of shootings?
ReplyDeleteThough making firearm manufacturers liable for shootings aftermath would most likely pressure them to make them safer, harder to access and tighten regulations on who could purchase them (extensive background checks), it ultimately seems unrealistic, as they simply make guns. It is up to the public and government to address this tragic issue, rather than pinning it on the maker of guns.
3. Would Trump be considered more of a success with the right if the Supreme Court heard the case and decided to not rule in favor of the Sandy Hook families?
ReplyDeleteFor those who support the second amendment right to bear arms, Trump would be more of a success because of his impact on the Supreme Court. He has already appointed two people who have become supreme court judges, so if they vote against the Sandy Hook families, people may see this as Trump's influence on the Supreme Court.
It would be considered more of a success with the right if the Supreme Court heard the case and voted that manufactures are not responsible for shooting aftermath because it would set precedent that one cannot punish manufactures. Trump would champion this win on the media and conservatives would consider it a success. Due to the fact that the right is pro-gun, any ruling that goes against gun regulations would be favorable to the right.
ReplyDelete