Old Dog
Member
There seems to be quite a logic gap in this line of thinking.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...1&cvid=e9a3b2c5437444daa2e510b5645531c6&ei=11
"What we’re trying to do through litigation is just encourage responsible conduct"
-Philip Bangle
Encouraging "responsible conduct" of the gun makers, but no effect on the criminals and mentally ill. Equating how gun makers market their products to the previous failures of the auto manufacturers to ensure "safe products." And bringing up the lawsuits on opioid manufacturers as well.
“Instead of focusing a lot of attention on the criminal shooters or mental health issues this litigation has focused attention on gun manufacturers, in terms of their design decisions, their distribution decisions and their marketing strategies,” Lytton said.
Timothy Lytton, distinguished professor at Georgia State University College of Law and editor of the book Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts, said litigation can help to push the issue of gun violence to the front of the public’s minds and also “reframe” the discussion of America’s gun crisis.
Basically, admissions that gun control advocates don't have a plan to address possession and use of firearms by criminals or mentally ill. Just use litigation to keep the "gun violence issue" to "the front of the public's minds" and hopefully put some gun-makers out of business.
The antis are using multi-pronged attacks on gun rights of American citizens; throwing as much poop on the wall as possible to see what sticks. Are we putting forth as much effort to "reframe" the discussion of "America's gun crisis" as the other side? Other than simply countering with quotes of the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights are we doing enough to directly rebut and expose the fallacies and bad logic of antis' strategies such as this?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/w...1&cvid=e9a3b2c5437444daa2e510b5645531c6&ei=11
"What we’re trying to do through litigation is just encourage responsible conduct"
-Philip Bangle
Encouraging "responsible conduct" of the gun makers, but no effect on the criminals and mentally ill. Equating how gun makers market their products to the previous failures of the auto manufacturers to ensure "safe products." And bringing up the lawsuits on opioid manufacturers as well.
“Instead of focusing a lot of attention on the criminal shooters or mental health issues this litigation has focused attention on gun manufacturers, in terms of their design decisions, their distribution decisions and their marketing strategies,” Lytton said.
Timothy Lytton, distinguished professor at Georgia State University College of Law and editor of the book Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts, said litigation can help to push the issue of gun violence to the front of the public’s minds and also “reframe” the discussion of America’s gun crisis.
Basically, admissions that gun control advocates don't have a plan to address possession and use of firearms by criminals or mentally ill. Just use litigation to keep the "gun violence issue" to "the front of the public's minds" and hopefully put some gun-makers out of business.
The antis are using multi-pronged attacks on gun rights of American citizens; throwing as much poop on the wall as possible to see what sticks. Are we putting forth as much effort to "reframe" the discussion of "America's gun crisis" as the other side? Other than simply countering with quotes of the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights are we doing enough to directly rebut and expose the fallacies and bad logic of antis' strategies such as this?
