I'm okay with that.
Car companies only implemented safety features after lawsuits came. Safety rose and fatalities dropped.
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
206 points (92.6% liked)
Technology
58061 readers
31 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Are you suggesting this was caused by an accident due to insufficient safety devices?
It seems kinda nuts. But if everyone sued everyone every time there was a mass shooting, things might actually start happening to minimize their frequency.
Or judges will just start throwing out the cases.
Probably that.
It’s the people vs the shooter. And let’s be honest, eventually the people of the USA is at least as guilty of this and all the other crimes like this as the actual shooter.
Yah. I can agree with that. If the shooter had their own licensed gun, the survivors could (should) sue the state government for giving the guy a gun licence.
That's a reaction to an act rather than a solution to a problem.
Whats the solution to stop the shootings even from licensed gun owners?
Look to other countries. Japan has a very sensible system, for example:
-
You must complete a licensing course to be able to own a rifle for hunting or target shooting. You must keep this license renewed.
-
You must arrange a police inspection of your storage annually, which requires the rifle and ammunition be in two separate lockers.
-
Handguns and semi-automatics are strictly prohibited. So much as possessing one carries a prison sentence. Obviously attempting to use one to kill people would be life imprisonment (or capital punishment, since they unfortunately still practice that).
We need similar laws, and strict penalties for arms manufacturers, smugglers and people who deal in them under the table. The first step is patching the hole in the boat before you start trying to pump the water out.
The only public shooting in recent memory was the assassination of a former Prime Minister with a "gun" made from a pipe, battery and fire crackers.
Improved education, prison reform that actually works, making jobs pay more money so people are strapped for cash all the time, making healthcare and education affordable, increased climate action so people can build towards a future they're excited about...
Gun control was a hellavalot more relaxed 50 years ago yet mass shootings were basically unheard of. So why is this just now a problem?
The federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 prohibited the AR-15, which is pretty much the weapon of choice for spree killers. The law expired in 2004.
We also have a growing resurgence of fascist ideology, which is favored by losers who also have access to guns.
No idea. I'm just a random Steve on the internet who thinks if people routinely sued the state for mass shootings, the state would have some financial incentive to do something.
There are people who study this stuff. I'm sure they have ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt11-5-1/ALDE_00013679/
Sovereign immunity is a real thing and it's hard to overcome. They may be able to sue a municipal government (county/parrish/city) but going after the State or the Federal govt means a lot of very efficiently walled off legal precedent to overcome. Even using bad faith arguments that can sometimes skirt around monetary damage for sovereign, it can still end up evaporating in the face of the the state/fed having to voluntarily be willing to be sued, not even looking at the cherry on top of the current established court views of the 2nd Amendment.
I guess the point is, there's no way, short of some weird amalgamation of liberal progressives and conservatives combining into a party that seems real election success over the course of a full decade, that most States and the US federal government would go all in on allowing themselves to be sued willingly. We're more likely to get an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed.
I strongly suspect that the suit against the gun companies will be thrown out. They complied with the laws, and the guns functioned as firearms are intended to function. The PLCAA was written precisely to prevent this kind of bad-faith lawsuit, where a company is being held responsible for the illegal used of their product. Imagine how batshit crazy it would be if you sued a Ford dealership for selling a car to someone that had a secret drinking problem, and that person then drove drunk and killed a bus full of schoolkids. What magic divination is the gun store supposed to use to figure out that a person is a mass-murder-to-be, and how do you ensure that no people that aren't going to be mass murderers aren't being denied their constitutional rights? Now, if the shooter was buying guns and armor, and told people, hey, what gun is going to be best for killing people in a supermarket?, then yeah, they have a case for negligence. But I've got an AR-15, and I'm working on saving up for body armor, because I need both for the kind of shooting competitions I'm interested in. Given how many AR-15s there are--over 24M in civilian hands, or about 1 for every 13 people--and given how many people own some form of body armor, compared to the number of these random, mass-murder events there are, neither purchase would normally raise any suspicion.
The case against the social media companies will be a challenge, because that's going to largely be covered by 1A issues, unless they can point to issues that amount to incitement.
Parents are a stretch as well. They'd likely have to have some kind of finding of gross negligence in order to hold them responsible.
If you really, truly, deeply care about preventing this kind of tragedy, then you need to start addressing root causes of this. The FBI published a report a year or two back about profiling this type of murderer, and it turns out that it's really hard because they're so very rare.
I really hate these kind of lawsuits, while yes what happened fucking sucks I feel like this always leads to repeal section 230 bullshit. I feel like we need to realize that having all eggs in one basket for social media is bad and decentralization is better. Secondly if section 230 was repealed the extremism excuse could be used to shut down anarchist mastodon instances