intended harm

taken from theskimm Oct 13th

What's hitting the 'deny' button….

SCOTUS. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied an appeal from gun-maker Remington to block a lawsuit filed by families of the 2012 Sandy Hook victims. The families claim the company is liable for the shooting over its promotion of the rifle used in the massacre. But the company says a law protects it from lawsuits over crimes committed with its guns. Yesterday, SCOTUS said it won't hear the appeal, so the lawsuit now goes back to a lower court in Connecticut.

I wonder if this is a good idea. I get that guns are essentially MADE to injure/kill something/someone so it's not like a BMW could be liable in the same way if someone killed someone else using a car because cars are made to transport you from point a to point b. that you misused it and killed someone doesn't really have to do with the car itself.

but couldn't you kind of argue that alcohol is made to make you feel different which leads to decreased reaction speeds, impaired decision making etc. so if someone killed someone else while drunk, could the victim's family sue Johnny Walker?

or a better example might be smoking since abusing alcohol is the problem, but having a glass with dinner likely won't hinder you enough to accidentally kill someone in an alcoholic fit. but if I died from lung cancer caused by second hand smoke, could my family sue Phillip Morris? when used correctly, smokers do cause harm to others.