Agreed. It doesn't seem like a long-term solution, but it is the best way we have _right now_ to visit consequences on people/orgs that enabled the tragedy. If our society sees everything in cost/benefit, then increasing the costs of actions that lead to tragedies like this is one of the best things we can do.

Suing into bankruptcy is the only flavor of capital punishment we have for corporations.

> people/orgs that enabled the tragedy

They didn’t though. Holding a rifle manufacturer liable for a shooting makes no sense, unless applied universally.

A journalist writing a book did not cause the shooting.

This is greed and lashing out in pain. I’m sure members of the community have ruined their life in pursuit of these things.

They did, if even indirectly. Just like how McDonald's holds some responsibility for the obesity epidemic.

The company that makes rifles makes them to be sold. It is in the company's best interest that as many mass shootings happen as possible. By providing guns, they DID contribute to the tragedy. We can tell, because if they had never produced that gun then it would've never shot anyone.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that the reason gun laws are so lax is because these companies lobby for it to be so. Again, they are incentivized to cause as many people to die as possible. Incentives matter. If mass shootings were the next blue jeans, these companies would quickly overthrow Apple.

Blame is very hard and tricky, but any institution or system in place is responsible for an intuitional failure. And that's what mass shootings are - an institutional failure.

The case against Remington was largely based on how the gun was marketed.

Depends on the wallets being lashed at

Sounds like a principled take based on rule of law.