In a moving editorial published in USA Today, Nicole Hockley argues that Remington, manufacturer of the AR-15, the assault rifle used during the Newtown Massacre, which claimed the life of Dylan Hockley, 6, should shoulder responsibility for the killings. Her reasoning is simple, and direct: Remington spends a fortune marketing the AR-15 assault rifles. The rifles serve only one purpose, which is to inflict massive carnage on a battlefield. Therefore, their pushing of a military grade killing machine on the public should merit sanctions.
There is a bill that gives gun companies immunity from prosecution in the event of a massacre, etc. However, as the author cites in her editorial, there are 6 scenarios where gun companies can be held liable. The one she offers, the one that is meant to uphold her argument, is this: gun companies can be held liable if they create an unnecessary risk, and then ignore it. Mrs. Hockley says that marketing a weapon as deadly as an AR-15 to young, and sometimes angry men, through video games. is creating an unnecessary risk. Because a person can often buy an AR-15 without proper screening, marketing the weapon to anyone at all is dangerous.
In my opinion, it is very irresponsible to have assault riles floating around the public sphere. It would also be irresponsible to market weapons of this sort in any way, if you were the manufacturer. I think there is a valid argument that Remington shares some of the blame, however, I say that with reservation. They aren't breaking any laws, and if we don't like what they are doing, we should take action to prevent them from selling assault rifles to people in the first place, not simply punish them after a massacre. However, I agree with her point, and feel deeply for her loss.
No comments:
Post a Comment