NY Times Editorial re PLCAA

[TeddyR]

The Times had an editorial a few days ago attacking the PLCAA and arguing in favor of the lawsuit filed by family members of the Sandy Hook victims against Remington. Although this one wasn't completely inaccurate, the Times referred to the weapon used as capable of "rapid burst" fire, which means the Times staff is either being intentionally misleading or isn't doing the research necessary to understand the topic on which they opine.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/05/opinion/the-right-to-sue-the-gun-industry.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

[flamin lib]

1. Ever heard of 'bump fire'? nt

[hack89]

2. Another semi-mythical beast never linked to any actual deaths or crimes. nt

[ileus]

3. Only problem is Remington doesn't sell useless aftermarket toys to their sporting rifles.

[Duckhunter935]

5. how would Remington be liable?

Even if that was the case. They do not sell any bump fire products.

[Duckhunter935]

6. are you for accuracy or not in reporting?

[Eleanors38]

7. Yes. But NYT hasn't, since this hat & cane expression ain't mentioned in its agitprop. NT.

[flamin lib]

9. I'm just using the gun nut tactic of being excruciatingly precise.

According to the OP the article said CAPABLE OF "RAPID BURST FIRE". Which it IS with the application of a rubber band.

But don't change your habit of attacking the messenger as a way of ignoring the message.

[Eleanors38]

10. Heh-heh.

[pablo_marmol]

14. "I'm just using the gun nut tactic........"

Of course you are.

[ileus]

4. intentionally misleading...when are they not.

They know their average reader is an idiot when it comes to firearms.

[Eleanors38]

8. The NYT full well knows it is deceiving. Why MSM has lost credibility on gun issues.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

11. Technology can be modified...

...through all sorts of human enginuity, to do all sorts of things for which it was not designed.

There was some kind of bizarre bump-fire device that I saw on a videotape once.

Hell, the ATF under Clinton would dick around with AR's until the fired more than one round at a time.

But think about it...

My car (according to the speedometer) could do 150 miles per hour.

My cell phone could be used to arrange ransom money drop off.

My backyard could be used to bury loot from a robbery.

But law abiding people don't do those things.

We are surrounded by potentially evil technology.

Just don't use it (mis-use it) for evil and everything will be fine.

[Big_Mike]

12. Then under this theory, should not the automobile manufacturer be held liable for the use of their

product, as it was used to transport him to the shooting scene? He killed the owner of the weapons (his mother), loaded many other weapons into the car as I remember, and drove to Sandy Hook. Shouldn't the town of Sandy Hook be sued since it inadequately protected children required to be on their premises under law? One can keep coming up with other equally non-culpable entities to sue, and if it were here in CA, they likely would be sued, judging by the litigation going on here.

The reason the PLCAA was written was to protect manufacturers who have no control over someone using their products to harm others. There are criminal and civil laws that cover that part of the question.

[DonP]

13. Please don't try to inject logic into these things, it makes the control folks sad

Then they get confused and angry. Puts them off their feed and they might accidentally get off the couch and do something about it.

Not likely however.