Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not exactly. It's like suing a car company if they market their car based on the premise of drinking and driving going well together, then a drunk who is driving that style of car hits you.
Which is why, btw, there is no booze in car commercials.
Cue "The More You Know"
Not a good analogy. Its more like suing a car company for marketing the car as suitable for RACING, which may be illegal on the public roads, but perfectly legal on a private road, or a racetrack.
Besides, this will be overturned due to judicial malfeasance. They are biased and it showed in that they automatically concluded, without applying any standard of scrutiny, that all gun combat is military (which is totally false) and that all military combat is offensive (which is also false). And in fact, military operations often involve a mixture of offensive and defensive operations even in the same theater, and even in the same field of engagement. So for a court to make these characterizations is biased, and its malfeasance. They pretend to know the aspirations of the advertisers, as well as the actual effect or perception of the audience.
Not sure why you think this is illegal, the constitution gives citizens this right under the 2nd, it actually becomes a duty at some point under the right circumstances too!
Exactly...that too. The court was wrong, and I hope they get slapped down hard.
Okay BUT what gun manufacturer is marketing their guns to the general public as tools that will kill people?
There are companies that make guns, tanks, land mines and other things that are marketed to military buyers but these are not available to civilians.
We all know that driving a car and alcohol does not mix just as we all know that handing a dangerous weapon like a gun to a deranged person intent on murder will not end well. Everyday we have drunks driving on the roads killing themselves and others but we don't ban booze or cars and we don't allow car manufacturers to be sued for these accidents UNLESS the car has a defect. The rifles do not have defects but they can be used as deadly weapons just as cars can be..?
Even if they were marketing their products as great for killing people, there are lots of instances where killing people is not a crime and perfectly reasonable.
Like when they are threatening you and causing you to fear for your life or the life of another - and this is the legal doctrine in every state in the country, including in Connecticut.
Kids are allowed to own and fire rifles in most states while handguns have more state and federal limitations. Marketing to kids and their parents isn't illegal, and like I said, kids owning/shooting firearms and parents buying firearms for them isn't illegal. Using firearms for self defense and marketing them as such also isn't illegal.
It's also not hard to judge shop to originally get the ruling you want. There are partisan polical judges on both sides of the ailse. This csse isn't going anywhere, and IMHO, will end with the plantiff paying Remington's legal fees.
Kids are allowed to own and fire rifles in most states while handguns have more state and federal limitations. Marketing to kids and their parents isn't illegal, and like I said, kids owning/shooting firearms and parents buying firearms for them isn't illegal. Using firearms for self defense and marketing them as such also isn't illegal.
It's also not hard to judge shop to originally get the ruling you want. There are partisan polical judges on both sides of the ailse. This csse isn't going anywhere, and IMHO, will end with the plantiff paying Remington's legal fees.
Yah I hope its treble damages too. Tortious interference, frivolous and harassing litigation, etc and so forth. Its egregious.
It's a valid point - not really an opinion, but a factoid.
As you well know, if said Ford could have easily had pedestrian avoidance built into it (which will very soon be standard), then - YES - Ford could be sued for the deaths or the excess deaths resulting from same.
So add my factoid to your and we can see that manufacturers, as in every industry, have a strict obligation to make certain that the product they sell is not abused.
I assume neither of us are legislators, but my assumption is that the future will hold gun makers and sellers much more responsible. It will only take a single victory or a couple mid-level wins to change the outlook.
Do you think Boeing may get held responsible for marketing the Max as needing no simulator and almost no additional pilot training?
No manufacturer of ANY product should be required to "...make certain that the product they sell is not abused." This is insanity.
In the movie, "A Fish Called Wanda" a character named K,K,K,K Ken tried to kill a lady just to prove that he was willing and able to kill someone. In one of his attempts, he dropped a piano on where he thought she would be. Well she moved back into cover and that piano crashed down on a cute little dog. K,K,K,K Ken LOVED dogs and never intended to harm the dog, just the woman. Now, let's say he actually succeeded and killed that woman. Should her family be able to sue the company that made the piano because someone used it in a manner which is clearly illegal... trying to kill someone with it? Of course not. To say that piano manufacturer could be sued for that would be insanity because it implies that manufacturer KNEW their product COULD POSSIBLY be used in an illegal act.
There is absolutely NOTHING stopping me from picking up ANY item and using it in an illegal manner. Yet rather than directing your faux rage at the idiot who is using any device, object or commodity in a manner which would be considered illegal, you want us to direct our attention to the producer of that item used? Using your LACK of logic, we could take this a step further and BAN EVERYTHING rather that punish the person who encroached upon the rights or property of another.
The FACT is, you don't like firearms and therefore you will make ANY argument, even one which is completely illogical, to further your desired outcome of banning all firearms.
Now to the nonsense you posted regarding the Boeing Max. It is obvious that don't have the first clue as to what is required to get type rated on an aircraft. Please just stop because this is getting more and more embarrassing.
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 03-15-2019 at 12:35 AM..
“The likelihood they’ll succeed is small,” he said.
Still, allowing the lawsuit to move forward means that there will be an opportunity for discovery that would unearth company documents that could be embarrassing for Remington. Since gunmakers have in recent history been shielded from litigation, company officials may have felt emboldened to openly discuss tactics, marketing strategies and other revealing details about business dealings.
Perfectly understandable why the parents wanted to move forward. Revealing any underlying rot in the company's marketing tactics is a good thing. Getting truth out is never a bad thing.
Perfectly understandable why the parents wanted to move forward. Revealing any underlying rot in the company's marketing tactics is a good thing. Getting truth out is never a bad thing.
Unearth what documents? The things you gun gabbers see as "rot" and as a problem is perfectly legal and commonly practiced. I also doubt that company executives are sitting around send memos on how to market to criminals who aren't allowed to puchased their products. This is a hige nothing burger that will result in nothing. I'm sure the Firearm companies will appeal the ruling to a less bais judge.
The shooter didn't purchase the gun, so the marketing angle doesn't really make sense.
The argument is that the gun company should be liable because their rifle is depicted in a video game. For those of you who think this is a good argument, I'd point out that the last Grand Theft Auto game had the following common vehicles in it:
Toyota Prius
Chevy Aveo
Dodge Ram
Ford Mustang
Dodge Challenger
VW Beetle
Ford Superduty
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Ford Crown Victoria
Think about that precedent for a moment. If someone is injured by a driver of one of those vehicles, are you OK with holding the auto manufacturer liable?
Ultimately this is much ado about nothing anyways. A federal appeal court will slap the suit down, as they're trying to bypass a federal law exclusively written to disallow this type of lawsuit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
