I wouldn’t doubt that the same algorithms that place soap ads on your screen after typing “dirty hands”, dont also place gun/ammo ads on the screens of folks who type in “shoot up”. That kind of thing. Maybe guns and ammo should have very strict marketing laws, more so than alcohol or tobacco.
Hunting and protection/defense are the only legit uses for guns that I can think of off the top of my head. Recreationally shooting, while fun, is not a legit use IMO. Agreed that “Offensive” could be a malleable term, but I’m sure the point behind it could be made more defined.
In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised ‘military-proven performance’ for a ‘mission-adaptable’ shooter in need of the ‘ultimate combat weapons system.’ " They also accuse the company of fostering a “lone gunman” narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”
The question is whether or not that advertising violated existing state or federal law. I don’t know if it violated anything but it seems rather childish and appealing to weirdos.
I think practicing with a purpose is legit. But when I’ve been at ranges, and out shooting with folks in the woods it’s usually done purely for the fun. Hell, my company does BD by taking folks skeet and Target shooting… Not much legit practicing going on there haha.
We have the right to defend and hunt with guns. But I think it’s a privilege to use them recreationally. That make more sense?
As for the Olympics… I don’t think 60% of the events belong haha, shooting would certainly be one of those.
See, I don’t get this “weirdo” vibe from it. I could point to a bunch of other products that you can hear similar things about “military proven performance” and “ultimate” this or that. Hell those stupid HD vision sunglasses on late night infomercials do practically the same kind of spiel.
It’s been universal to pull out “military grade”, “military proven…” This or that type of language when marketing to civilians for tons of things for literally decades, including guns. Maybe guns should have more strict marketing laws than other items, but that doesn’t check the weirdo box for me and it doesn’t check any childish box more than all the other marketing schemes I am inundated with daily.
We clearly will never see eye to eye on this. Maybe it’s because I grew up with them around my relatives. I don’t want to need a “legitimate use” for exercising my free speech or any other fundamental right. If I need a legitimate use to justify it then by definition it is NOT a fundamental right.
Shooting for fun is a perfectly legitimate use (if it’s at target papers…not that I should need the disclaimer)
Totally subjective, though there are many things 99% of folks would deem a privilege, not a right… Or vice versa.
I tend to lean privilege for things done purely for the fun. The big, selfish, exception being access to public lands which o think should be a right to all.
It isn’t that it makes no sense; it’s to whom it does make sense.
Keep in mind that this is a lawsuit against a company that makes guns, not candy. I don’t think calling it a typically ridiculous marketing ploy is going to be a good defense.
It seems that if nothing else the Sandy Hook action may have influenced a Canadian lawsuit threat. Media in both countries is close to being integrated.
At the core of it, Smith & Wesson made an agreement with the Clinton White House that in fact there was a danger of their weapons being used nefariously, and that owner only use technologies should be adopted. the Canadian case argues that since they agreed with that idea, they should have gone to the trouble to apply the technology to their products everywhere.
