Sandy Hook Parents Pen Editorial Correcting Senator Sanders

Mark and Jackie Barden lost their seven year old son, Daniel, in the massacre at Sandy Hook. They write in the Washington Post today to take issue with the position of Senator Sanders regarding the lawsuit they and ten other parents have brought against Remington. Senator Sanders expounded on his view at the last Democratic debate in Michigan and these bereaved parents are not happy with his characterisation of their suit, via The Washington Post:

We write in response to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s comments about our lawsuit at the recent Democratic presidential debate in Michigan. Sanders suggested that the “point” of our case is to hold Remington Arms Co. liable simply because one of its guns was used to commit mass murder. With all due respect, this is simplistic and wrong. 

This case is about a particular weapon, Remington’s Bushmaster AR-15, and its sale to a particular market: civilians. It is not about handguns or hunting rifles, and the success of our lawsuit would not mean the end of firearm manufacturing in this country, as Sanders warned. This case is about the AR-15 because the AR-15 is not an ordinary weapon; it was designed and manufactured for the military to increase casualties in combat. The AR-15 is to guns what a tank is to cars: uniquely deadly and suitable for specialized use only.

Senator Sanders made the argument that manufacturers should not be held liable for simply manufacturing weapons, via CNN:

"If they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you're really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don't agree with that," he said.

This view was endorses by the NRA:

Sen. Sanders was spot-on in his comments about gun manufacturer liability/PLCAA https://t.co/nDjEerjkgB#DemDebatepic.twitter.com/jEScbMDFt4

The Bardens seek to correct this view, again via WaPo:

We have never suggested that Remington should be held liable simply for manufacturing the AR-15. In fact, we believe that Remington and other manufacturers’ production of the AR-15 is essential for our armed forces and law enforcement. But Remington is responsible for its calculated choice to sell that same weapon to the public, and for emphasizing the military and assaultive capacities of the weapon in its marketing to civilians.

They go on to make the point that the AR-15 is marketed as a weapon made to inflict mass casualties, it’s selling point being it’s ability to bring your enemies to their knees and yet this is a weapon sold to civilians:

This is not a theoretical dispute. The last thing our sweet little Daniel would have seen in his short, beautiful life was the long barrel of a ferocious rifle designed to kill the enemy in war. The last thing Daniel’s tender little body would have felt were bullets expelled from that AR-15 traveling at greater than 3,000 feet per second — a speed designed to pierce body armor in the war zones of Fallujah.

The parents of Daniel Barden echo Hillary Clinton’s argument at the debate that Senator Sanders fights tirelessly agains corporate greed and that it is unfathomable why he would then support manufacturers who in their words:

 “recklessly market and profit from the sale of combat weapons to civilians and then shrug their shoulders when the next tragedy occurs, leaving ordinary families and communities to pick up the pieces.”

Please read the whole editorial by the Bardens.