Judge Rules S&W Can Be Sued

[SAJ-99]

If this passes maybe Big Sugar can be sued for diabetes and obesity and their operations in Florida dismantled. It would save Americans health and the Everglades in one fell swoop.

Already happened. Coca-cola was sued for promoting unhealthy product. KO rep said there was no scientific evidence inking obesity and Coke products. Then later they tried to blame Americans for lack of exercise, not the product. It has been quite entertaining. The difference might be that this is a case (much like Tobacco) about misleading advertising. Lawyers and judges will figure it out.

I am mostly fascinated by the broad support of corporations in these types of cases.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Already happened. Coca-cola was sued for promoting unhealthy product. KO rep said there was no scientific evidence inking obesity and Coke products. Then later they tried to blame Americans for lack of exercise, not the product. It has been quite entertaining. The difference might be that this is a case (much like Tobacco) about misleading advertising. Lawyers and judges will figure it out.

I am mostly fascinated by the broad support of corporations in these types of cases.

Exactly, regardless of how one feels about these lawsuits, tobacco/Coca-cola etc. I'm not sure I can come up with a reason why firearms manufactures should be shielded from them.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with marketing a product.

 

[SAJ-99]

Exactly, regardless of how one feels about these lawsuits, tobacco/Coca-cola etc. I'm not sure I can come up with a reason why firearms manufactures should be shielded from them.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with marketing a product.

Agree. Maybe the case against companies that make opioids are a better comparison. I don't know if someone could sue the federal government under the Federal Tort act for negligence in not enforcing a particular gun law. Don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole.

 

[Glockster]

So apparently I missed something. Is there a firearm manufacturer that is manufacturing and advertising their guns as the best for mass shootings?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So apparently I missed something. Is there a firearm manufacturer that is manufacturing and advertising their guns as the best for mass shootings?

https://brady-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Minute-Order-7-2-21-S0499865.PDF

Here is the case.

 

[Glockster]

I understand the case but that doesn’t answer my question, which fire manufacturing is advertising their weapon as the best for mass shootings?
They can pedal that bull crap the “military style weapon” all they want. Last I checked shotguns are used in the military as well as both actions, are those military style weapons?
This is the type of case you would expect to come out of California. It is a gross overreach and the only intention of it is to try to bankrupt gun companies so they can no longer manufacture guns. They are literally trying to sue the AR 15 out of existence.
Anyone trying to spin it any other way is either willfully ignorant or just stupid.

 

[Glockster]

Or a lawyer which is even worse than the other two options

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I understand the case but that doesn’t answer my question, which fire manufacturing is advertising their weapon as the best for mass shootings?
They can pedal that bull crap the “military style weapon” all they want. Last I checked shotguns are used in the military as well as both actions, are those military style weapons?
This is the type of case you would expect to come out of California. It is a gross overreach and the only intention of it is to try to bankrupt gun companies so they can no longer manufacture guns. They are literally trying to sue the AR 15 out of existence.
Anyone trying to spin it any other way is either willfully ignorant or just stupid.

Can you sue Coke, Ford, Walmart, McDonald's, Exxon etc for equally frivolous things?

Seems to me that everyone should follow the same rules, I definitely think there is a strong argument for US Tort reform, though at the same time sometimes it's greatly beneficial for consumer protection.

I hope they have good insurance.

 

[Glockster]

Definition of frivolous​

1a: of little weight or importance
b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law)a frivolous lawsuit
2a: lacking in seriousnessa frivolous conversation

I would say you accurately described the merits of this lawsuit.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Definition of frivolous​

1a: of little weight or importance
b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law)a frivolous lawsuit
2a: lacking in seriousnessa frivolous conversation

I would say you accurately described the merits of this lawsuit.

1a - products liability, advertising liability and gun use are all weighty and important topics; 1b - until scotus says otherwise there is a good faith basis for pursuing a marketing angle in this case; 2a - 1a and 1b make this far short of lacking seriousness.

So, I hate "legislation by tort",I am pro-2A, I think they will lose this case and I would love to see serious tort reform, but your dismissive approach to almost every topic you reply to grows tiring. So, are you:

1a: Intellectually unable to understand the arguments of those who disagree with you?
b: Emotionally unable to respond respectfully (without calling people stupid) when faced with the views of others? OR
2: both?

 

[Nick87]

Same stupid actions of the general public is why we can't have a functioning gas can. Unbelievable. That a gun maker can be sued for misuse of their product is a crock of shit. mtmuley

https://gasspouts.com/products/repl...ium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google Shopping&gc_id=1376814448&gclid=CjwKCAjwlrqHBhByEiwAnLmYUDsQfEzE-F4smVYl2I-A8qGGxJFc5jh3U0Girkr_DQ
4Y8HGzItHIhhoCY6QQAvD_BwE

Maybe you've already got em idk?? Dont even get me started on those stupid ass vented nozzles.

 

[VikingsGuy]

https://gasspouts.com/products/repl...ium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google Shopping&gc_id=1376814448&gclid=CjwKCAjwlrqHBhByEiwAnLmYUDsQfEzE-F4smVYl2I-A8qGGxJFc5jh3U0Girkr_DQ4Y8HGzItHIhhoCY6QQAvD_BwE
Maybe you've already got em idk?? Dont even get me started on those stupid ass vented nozzles.

Don't let big-gov know you are buing these . . . . (I can neither confirm nor deny that I have "restored" a few gas can to full function)

 

[Glockster]

1a - products liability, advertising liability and gun use are all weighty and important topics; 1b - until scotus says otherwise there is a good faith basis for pursuing a marketing angle in this case; 2a - 1a and 1b make this far short of lacking seriousness.

So, I hate "legislation by tort",I am pro-2A, I think they will lose this case and I would love to see serious tort reform, but your dismissive approach to almost every topic you reply to grows tiring. So, are you:

1a: Intellectually unable to understand the arguments of those who disagree with you?
b: Emotionally unable to respond respectfully (without calling people stupid) when faced with the views of others? OR
2: both?

Oh OK, marketing angle, I’ll ask for the third time and keep waiting. Which gun company was marketing their AR 15 rifle as the best rifle to commit mass shootings?Its a simple question.
If someone can bring up a commercial or ad, I am all ears I’d even accept a ad that shows the recommended gun for a drive-by shooting, botched drug deal, or even the recommended firearm to intimidate your neighbor if their dog is pooping in your yard. Anything along those lines.

Everyone here knows there isn’t anything like that. 99.9% of gun companies promote gun safety. As stated above read through the owners manual that comes with a firearm it’s mentioned in there about about every other damn line.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Oh OK, marketing angle, I’ll ask for the third time and keep waiting. Which gun company was marketing their AR 15 rifle as the best rifle to commit mass shootings?Its a simple question.
If someone can bring up a commercial or ad, I am all ears I’d even accept a ad that shows the recommended gun for a drive-by shooting, botched drug deal, or even the recommended firearm to intimidate your neighbor if their dog is pooping in your yard. Anything along those lines.

Everyone here knows there isn’t anything like that. 99.9% of gun companies promote gun safety. As stated above read through the owners manual that comes with a firearm it’s mentioned in there about about every other damn line.

Disclaimer - I disagree with the plaintiffs and think they should lose. But the theory is that the tacti-cool ads and tactical-Chad focused marketing encouraged folks to use these products to go commando on fellow citizens or otherwise glorified or encouraged offensive use of these weapons against innocents. It is the same as the logic behind the violent videogames law suits. And the war against explicit movies, tv, etc. It is not that the gun ad says explicitly kill people or the video game says kill people or the rap song tells you to do drugs - the objection is that glamorizing these products reduces sensitivity to the risks (gun violence, drug use, sex, etc) in these otherwise lawful products. I don't like it, not one bit, but this is hardly a new way of trying to force a change (or even closure) of an industry.

 

[4ohSick]

Oh OK, marketing angle, I’ll ask for the third time and keep waiting. Which gun company was marketing their AR 15 rifle as the best rifle to commit mass shootings?Its a simple question.
If someone can bring up a commercial or ad, I am all ears I’d even accept a ad that shows the recommended gun for a drive-by shooting, botched drug deal, or even the recommended firearm to intimidate your neighbor if their dog is pooping in your yard. Anything along those lines.

Everyone here knows there isn’t anything like that. 99.9% of gun companies promote gun safety. As stated above read through the owners manual that comes with a firearm it’s mentioned in there about about every other damn line.

Which opioid company marketed their drugs as "best to get hooked, lose your family, and OD on"? Marketing doesn't have to be that explicit to be considered malicious.

 

[Glockster]

From the 19/20 catalog. Yeah that just screams Go shoot up a synagogue, school, place of work, or really anywhere else.

Or you see pictures of law enforcement

 

[Glockster]

My God the 21 catalog is even worse.

Smith & Wesson 2021 Catalog

Learn more about Smith & Wesson firearms by checking out our Flipbook.

www.smith-wesson.com

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Disclaimer - I disagree with the plaintiffs and think they should lose. But the theory is that the tacti-cool ads and tactical-Chad focused marketing encouraged folks to use these products to go commando on fellow citizens or otherwise glorified or encouraged offensive use of these weapons against innocents. It is the same as the logic behind the violent videogames law suits. And the war against explicit movies, tv, etc. It is not that the gun ad says explicitly kill people or the video game says kill people or the rap song tells you to do drugs - the objection is that glamorizing these products reduces sensitivity to the risks (gun violence, drug use, sex, etc) in these otherwise lawful products. I don't like it, not one bit, but this is hardly a new way of trying to force a change (or even closure) of an industry.

So who is going to be in tactical-Chad Triumvirate?

 

[Cogreeny]

I think companies should be held liable for their products, when they don't function as advertised and people are harmed. Remington trigger would be a topical example.

I agree to a certain extent. However how about taking some personal responsibility and not covering someone with your muzzle? You don’t point the rifle at someone pretty hard for them to get shot. But then again there are dumbasses out there.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree to a certain extent. However how about taking some personal responsibility and not covering someone with your muzzle? You don’t point the rifle at someone pretty hard for them to get shot. But then again there are dumbasses out there.

Remington settled a class action on that one.

Whole body of law around defective products.
Whole body of law around advertising.

Gun companies are just companies, same rules apply, even if I think they are dumb.