The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned the 2005 lower court ruling that shields gun manufacturers from liability if their products are used in crimes. According to the Associated Press, the plaintiffs argue that "
the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter XXXXX XXXXX* is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people."
_______________________________________________
* I refuse to post the names of mass shooters on this blog.
_______________________________________________
As of today, I cannot find evidence anywhere that Remington "marketed the AR-15 to young individuals." This is a very weak argument and I was even surprised it got a court hearing... much less actually WIN. So far, the only marketing pieces brought forward by the plaintiffs that I've seen from Remington is "consider your man card reissued" and "forces of opposition, bow down." Do I like these slogans? No, not really. I don't usually like the over-the-top, macho style of advertising that many firearm companies use. However, this is a pretty shaky case. I'm sure I've heard similar slogans used for G.I.-Joe action figures.
But could these slogans have caused the horrific Sandy Hook Shooting in 2012? Did Remington "court" the shooter as the plaintiffs said in court? Did any of Remington's slogans trigger this mental condition in the shooter that made him shoot his own mother, steal her guns, and then massacre children?? Unless more evidence comes to light soon, this is an incredibly, INCREDIBLY weak argument.
While it may sound that I'm being insensitive, I cannot stress enough how much I sympathize with the Newtown parents. I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child to such a sick individual. But I stand by what I've said before. It is of my opinion that these parents need to blame someone. They want to make someone pay for what happened to their family, and since the shooter took his own life, there's only one person (company) to blame - the makers of the weapon used. To those of us on the outside looking in, we see your pain, but fail to understand how the makers of an object (an object that is used in less than 1% of all gun crimes
according to FBI statistics) is responsible for the acts of this monster.
This is why the 2005 ruling was so important. It recognized the difference between the product maker, and the perpetrator of an evil action, and now these lines are blurring.
This ruling could lay the groundwork for an inconceivably bad precedent going forward. Now, if someone is mugged and shot in the streets of Chicago by an illegal firearm owner, the maker of that weapon could potentially be held responsible citing this Connecticut ruling. Every time a good guy with a gun defends themselves or family with a firearm, the manufacturers of that firearm will send their best lawyers. While that may sound nice to some, do you think that will actually happen? Or is it more likely that gun manufacturers close their doors for good, not wanting to take the risk of losing everything. This is the platform that Hillary Clinton ran on, knowing that if something like this passes, it's only a matter of time before all gun companies go out of business. I know what you're thinking, "Wait, this case was about marketing, not the physical crime." Unless more hard evidence can be found, my opinion on the matter remains the same. Based on the evidence that I've seen, Remington should not be held responsible for anything regarding the shooter's actions.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but a case like this scares me as a lawful gun owner. It's difficult to convey the sympathy I hold for these families, but also side with the gun companies in times like this. On it's face, it sounds immoral. But decisions like the court case in Connecticut must not be made with emotion, but instead with facts and hard evidence. This case was decided with emotion.
