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
223 points (93.7% liked)
Technology
58157 readers
3561 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
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.
the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a lawsuit
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.
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