The Supreme Court made it possible to sue a gun company for the crime committed by one user?
Today something crazy happened, a precedent was set. Today, the Connecticut Supreme Court voted against the firearms industry. How? Because they decided that Remington Arms, the maker of a semiautomatic rifle that was used by a mentally ill young man by the name of Adam Lanza, should be liable for the damage caused by the gun.
Lanza used the gun to shoot down 20 children and six teachers and his own mother at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. This tremendous tragedy led to the increase in public outcry for tighter gun laws and for some, the total illegality of guns for general Americans.
The 4-3 decision was made on the basis that the gun was advertised unlawfully. The gun was advertised on prime time television, broadcasted to the majority of Americans. The lawyers argued that this manipulated the average American male by using slogans like “Consider your man card reissued”.
This decision came despite the protections granted by Congress in a 2005 law that protected manufacturers from liability when their guns are used in criminal activity. This set a precedent in US law.
Firstly, what Adam Lanza did on that fateful day was wrong beyond measure. But let’s talk about responsibility for a moment. If you decide one night to meet up with your friends and get wasted, is it the responsibility of Heineken because that is what you were drinking all night? Or is it yours?
Personally I believe that every action you make on a day to day basis is made by you. Yes we are influenced by marketing, but we have sole autonomy over our decisions, period. Especially when it comes deciding whether we want to go out and commit the premeditated massacre of nearly 30 people.