Court allows Sandy Hook families to sue Remington

So is the feeling here that the gun companies should not bear any responsibility for the marketing of their WMDs? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Another thought. Should mongers be held responsible for human trafficking in the sex trade? You could use the same logic to hold you responsible for women being kidnapped and forced to work as prostitutes.



So at what point do you separate those who do something legitimately from those who go down the evil path version of that thing? Does one psycho with a gun that kills many represent all gun owners? Does one pervert that is willing to have sex with underage girls that are sex slaves represent every person who sees a legitimate/willing/free sex worker?

So is the feeling here that the gun companies should not bear any responsibility for the marketing of their WMDs? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

They are gun companies. They dont make anything that would classify as a weapon of mass destruction.

And I agree with Jackie that firearms were created for one purpose.

However, that purpose must be delivered by a person.

That person, the ONLY person responsible, blew his fucking brains out.

I understand the parents wanting some one to blame. That guy is dead though.

Jackie? CB, Lama is that you? Wow a post I TOTALLY agree with.
Good job bb.

PS: Borrowed from the Lama. "You're still a Jerk" Originally Posted by themystic

I never said that.

This is the same thing I thought when I heard abut the law suit. I don't understand how a marketing strategy that Remington has can put their company in a position of liability because someone stole a gun and committed mass murder. They might have a point if the advertisers said - "hey,hey, look at this weapon! You need to go out and get one and if you can't buy it - be sure to steal it from anybody you can - including your Mother!"

Adam Lanza didn't purchase the weapon; so, Remington's marketing strategy doesn't apply. Adam Lanza was never Remington's customer. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This is the same thing I thought when I heard abut the law suit. I don't understand how a marketing strategy that Remington has can put their company in a position of liability because someone stole a gun and committed mass murder. They might have a point if the advertisers said - "hey,hey, look at this weapon! You need to go out and get one and if you can't buy it - be sure to steal it from anybody you can - including your Mother!" Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

It doesn't. It's going to get tossed on appeal.

All reasonable jurists would opine that any such lawsuit should be shit-canned pursuant to a summary judgment ruling.

Is that your opinion?

He shot his mother, who should have had the gun locked up. His father was divorced and living in a distant location. His father knew of the boy's mental illness.

I believe there is a federal statute that disallows firearms makers, for the most part, to be sued for actions like this.

I didn't read your lengthy article.

The Feds need to do a root cause analysis of failures at the local, state, federal and personal level to determine why this is happening. Like I said about the FLA shooting, there were multiple, lengthy and outrageous failures that enabled the guy to obtain and keep his AR15. Same thing for the TX church shooter. Same thing for the AZ shooter.

But it's easier for the Dems and bureaucrats to "blame the gun."

Interesting... The victims of Las Vegas shooting are suing everything possible except the gun manufacturers. In Sandy hook I guess there is nobody to sue with money except the gun manufacturer.

Suing the manufacturer is frivolous and baseless. This is what happens when you deal with left unhinged hypocrite


MAGA

TRUMP 2020

Jackie? CB, Lama is that you? Wow a post I TOTALLY agree with.
Good job bb.

PS: Borrowed from the Lama. "You're still a Jerk" Originally Posted by themystic

Nice try...your olive branch SC...to you're a jerk.
No worries...I always consider the source.
You're "borrowing" insults now...clever...NOT!!

We as a country are blaming Everything BUT the criminal ,,,, Think about it we need to look at the loons behind this craziness .

We are fooling ourselves if we keep our heads in the sand and refuse to believe that firearms are in a very specific category. They are not hair dryers, not power tools, not automobiles. The primary purpose of firearms, going back to the time that they were invented, was to kill living things.

I am a lifetime NRA member. I am an adamant shooter. Firearm ownership and use demands the utmost in responsibility, because always remember, it's primary purpose is to take life.


If a court does find that Remington's advertisements were affective to the point that it compels little shits like these "gamers" to go out and kill innocent people, then a jury just might find them liable.

I doubt it would survive appeal, but that's another topic.

I'm not sure where the culpability of the producers of these ultra violent video games comes into play, but if playing these games compells a little turd to climb out of the basement and kill living human beings, then perhaps they are just as liable.

The violent games made him do it, the AR-15 gave him the capability.

Which is worse? Originally Posted by Jackie S

People aren't responsible for the actions...GOTCHA.
We can't blame the individual...got to find the deep pockets.
There should be a shit load of lawsuits in Chicago...all the gun manufactures that allow the horrendous murders there.

Is there any link between the violent video game manufacturer and the firearms companies...do tell...do the firearms manufacturers pay them to promote their guns on this videos...if they do they need to suffer the consequences.The game is violent...the gun is not...it is a fucking inanimate object...can't do a fucking thing on it's own.

You want to link firearms to killing things...I've had a CCL for over ten years as many of my friends...we have never killed anything...people kill people not guns.
When does passing the buck stop??

So is the feeling here that the gun companies should not bear any responsibility for the marketing of their WMDs? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your brilliance always shines through...all you have to do is open your mouth

no!

this is a misdirected and misguided attempt to collect cash.

I don't see how they can prove marketing malfeasance against the gun company. This isn't like the Tobacco wars where they could prove causation between smoking and marketing.

the kid did not buy or own the weapon. he stole it from his parents.

eventually the courts will dismiss it. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

This will be an exercise in futility...thank god!!

Your brilliance always shines through...all you have to do is open your mouth Originally Posted by bb1961

I suppose then your answer to the question is ...