agsalaska said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

That damn gun got up off the shelf and decided to shoot everyone of its own volition I guess.

---

This world has gone crazy and we all know this, but I still cannot understand how people can blame a inanimate tool with causing these events. Blows my mind, but I guess it shouldn't.

---

They are not blaming the tool. They are blaming the marketing of the tool.

---

So you agree with this tactic? Because the end game is the same.

So, if someone gets beaten to death with a baseball bat, should the bat manufacturer be liable? What about kitchen knives? Or rope used for a hanging? What makes guns fundamentally different from other weapons?

JB!98 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

That damn gun got up off the shelf and decided to shoot everyone of its own volition I guess.

---

This world has gone crazy and we all know this, but I still cannot understand how people can blame a inanimate tool with causing these events. Blows my mind, but I guess it shouldn't.

---

They are not blaming the tool. They are blaming the marketing of the tool.

---

So you agree with this tactic? Because the end game is the same.

---

Do I agree with suing adult toy makers for marketing to children?? I mean …maybe.

Do I think Daniel Defense marketed to children? I would be absolutely shocked if they did. Like I said on the first page, they are going to have to show that DD specifically marketed their products, and this specific product, to minors. No way that happened. My guess is, and this is just a guess, DD inadvertently captured the shooter with some online marketing because there is little age restrictions. But that's not deliberate. It would be like suing Budweiser for marketing to minors because of a billboard on the highway.

But to be clear your comment is incorrect. They are not at all the same.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

So, if someone gets beaten to death with a baseball bat, should the bat manufacturer be liable? What about kitchen knives? Or rope used for a hanging? What makes guns fundamentally different from other weapons?

---

I think a more logical argument would be alcohol, tobacco, in some States pot, some pharmaceuticals, etc. things that are age restricted by law are much more applicable to this lawsuit than something a kid can already purchase.

So, to answer your question, that's what makes it different and why the lawsuit specifically explores the marketing of the product not the product itself.

To be clear that's not am endorsement of the lawsuit. I will be very surprised if they can proved DD targeted juveniles. Doesn't make sense to target a group that you can't sell too. That be like targeting old men with tampon ads. Doesn't make sense.

agsalaska said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

So, if someone gets beaten to death with a baseball bat, should the bat manufacturer be liable? What about kitchen knives? Or rope used for a hanging? What makes guns fundamentally different from other weapons?

---

I think a more logical argument would be alcohol, tobacco, in some States pot, some pharmaceuticals, etc. things that are age restricted by law are much more applicable to this lawsuit than something a kid can already purchase.

So, to answer your question, that's what makes it different and why the lawsuit specifically explores the marketing of the product not the product itself.

To be clear that's not am endorsement of the lawsuit. I will be very surprised if they can proved DD targeted juveniles. Doesn't make sense to target a group that you can't sell too. That be like targeting old men with tampon ads. Doesn't make sense.

---

What about moisture pads?

Lol

annie88 said:

---

I'm truly sorry for their losses. I could not even imagine but this has nothing to do with a gun manufacturer.

doesn't have to do with the gun

Has to do with hatred and mental illness.

---

Gun functioned flawlessly as designed to propel a 55g projectile every time the trigger was pulled on a live round. The vectors of said projectiles were determined by someone unasociated with Daniel Defense.

Here you go buddy

Hell, three people gave it stars.

The gun manufacturer shares zero responsibility.

agsalaska said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

That damn gun got up off the shelf and decided to shoot everyone of its own volition I guess.

---

This world has gone crazy and we all know this, but I still cannot understand how people can blame a inanimate tool with causing these events. Blows my mind, but I guess it shouldn't.

---

They are not blaming the tool. They are blaming the marketing of the tool.

---

So you agree with this tactic? Because the end game is the same.

---

Do I agree with suing adult toy makers for marketing to children?? I mean …maybe.

Do I think Daniel Defense marketed to children? I would be absolutely shocked if they did. Like I said on the first page, they are going to have to show that DD specifically marketed their products, and this specific product, to minors. No way that happened. My guess is, and this is just a guess, DD inadvertently captured the shooter with some online marketing because there is little age restrictions. But that's not deliberate. It would be like suing Budweiser for marketing to minors because of a billboard on the highway.

But to be clear your comment is incorrect. They are not at all the same

---

Ok, I think we are on the same page. Thanks for the explanation!