In USA Today: Interviewed about the Connecticut Supreme Court decision on the lawsuit against Remington

28 Mar , 2019  

In a close 4-3 decision the Connecticut state Supreme Court, gave the green light for a lawsuit against gun maker Remington, which made the Bushmaster gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting. The very liberal Supreme Court, with 6 of the 7 Justices appointed by the previous Democrat Governor Malloy, saw that even liberal Democrats were divided on the decision. The case targets the ads Remington put out for the gun. But personal defense and law enforcement are perfectly legitimate reasons for people to own guns. The plaintiffs say that the ad would be OK if they merely dealt with target shooting, but why shouldn’t an ad mention self-defense when most people are looking to buy guns for that very reason (e.g., see surveys by Pew Research and Gallup).

There is no evidence that the ads influenced the actions of the Sandy Hook killer. In addition, the state Supreme Court decision significantly expands the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. For the first time, the court has allowed the act to be used in cases where there was no “commercial relationship.” The shooter did not buy the gun he used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School; his mother did.

The plaintiffs also point to a military computer game that may have influenced the Sandy Hook killer, but the fully automatic gun used in the computer game was not the same as the semi-automatic gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Dr. John Lott was interviewed for a story that USA Today did on the Connecticut court decision. He made all the points above. Here is the portion of the article that discussed his points.

John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and author of several books including “More Guns, Less Crime,” said buyers of guns like AR-15s aren’t intent on killing. More often than not, they want their guns for personal protection.

Even then, they are unlikely to ever shoot if attacked, knowing mere sight of the weapon itself is enough to deter an assailant. The industry’s ads, too, don’t depict illegal acts, Lott said. . . .


One Response

  1. Tionico says:

    Plaintiffs should be suing the PURCHASER of the gun alledgedly used…. SHE is the one brought it to where the killer was able to get it. Oh wait, never mind, she’s dead because her wonderful son killed her to get hold of it.

    Funny thing, though, I watched the video of the Medical Examiner as he FIRST emerged from the scene of the carnage and was questioned by media. He declared at that point that “all the victims I examined had been shot at close range with a HANDGUN”. So it would appear the horrid black and ugly Bushmaster was not even used….. later we saw the “Bushmaster” being retrieved from the trunk of the car the killer alledgedly drove to the school (nuther funny thing, he is said never to have driven a car…) that was well AFTER all the shooting had stopped.
    The Federal Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provided immunity to the manufacturer of a firearm that is used to harm, as the manufacturer has NO CONTROL over who ends up with that weapon nor how anyone might misuse it.

    WHY do not the victims in Manhattan sue Home Depot and Ford because some dirtbag rented their truck and killed some folks on the bike path by ramming into them. Makes perfect sense, right? Except, no it does not.HOW could the clerk at Home Depot have any knowledge as to what the renter was going to do with their truck? Couldn’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *