Court rules that gun company can be sued for Newtown shooting. (crimes, school)

[Pilot1]

This needs to go to a higher court, maybe even the Supreme Court to be overturned. It is a very dangerous precedent.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

This needs to go to a higher court, maybe even the Supreme Court to be overturned. It is a very dangerous precedent.

It will.

[Pilot1]

The premise off the ruling is that Remington marketed AR-15's to children which is ridiculous. Lanza stole the AR-15 from his mother after he killed her.

[Maccabee 2A]

Originally Posted by RedZin

Guns are created to kill people. Cars are not.

Nope. Guns are created to shoot projectiles at the owner's intended target. Whether it be paper targets, animals, or humans.

Every time the "guns are equal to cars" argument comes up, it strikes me as lazy.

Every time someone comes back with "guns are for killing people while cars aren't," It strikes me as lazy. Because the purpose of an item doesn't draw away from the anology.

Anything can be weaponized. Guns ARE weapons. That is their ORIGINAL intent.

How is that relevant?

Societally, when guns get advertised as things you use to shoot humans, it is problematic.

They're advertised as protection from lethal threats.

[Cape Cod Todd]

Originally Posted by Enigma777

I second that emotion!

They busted the tobacco-pushers. Start holding companies responsible for their contributions to death and destruction.

And about the 'car' example? Automakers are actually held to extremely high safety standards and are sued big-time when they don't. The NRA assists the gunmakers in literally getting away with murder.

UGH. Tobacco companies were held responsible because they were pumping their product with all sorts of chemicals that would help to keep people addicted.

Of course car manufacturers are held to a high safety standard and if their product is found to be defective they issue recalls as some did when it came to airbags exploding for example.

Gun manufacturers also manufacturer their products to high standards so the end user is not harmed when they use the product in a responsible manner.



The NRA does not assist gun makers in getting away with murder because the NRA promotes the safe use of guns, personal responsibility and protecting the Second Amendment from people that have no clue about guns except thinking that they are evil.



The question is when does the liability for a manufacturer of a product end?

If someone steals your car and takes it on a murderous rampage, running over people on the sidewalk, loading it with buckets of gasoline and crashing it into the front of a school and lighting a match as the kids are coming out who is responsible? Can the families of the victims sue you? sue the car maker, sue the gas station and the bucket store? How about the matches that have started fires that have claimed hundreds of thousands of victims and cost us Billions of dollars since they were invented?



Where does it all end?

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

It's not the manufacturer's responsibility if someone uses their product illegally. Using that train of thought, makers of alcoholic drinks could be sued everytime someone uses their products illegally and kills someone.

This is likely to land in the federal courts and the federal law forbidding these lawsuits will likely be applied and the lawsuit tossed.

It will likely be dismissed immediately.

[Cape Cod Todd]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

The premise off the ruling is that Remington marketed AR-15's to children which is ridiculous. Lanza stole the AR-15 from his mother after he killed her.

The other day I was playing Angry Birds on my phone and an ad for another game popped up that was a first person shooter type. One minute I'm playing a cute kids game where I'm launching birds from a sling shot to topple structures and take out green pigs and then in the 30 second animated ad I'm looking down a barrel of a gun where the "I" the shooter sneaks around a corner of a building and is faced with another guy "a bad guy" pointing his gun at me but I shoot first and he is dead.



There are dozens of these types of games out there that our kids are playing and there are few movies today that don't have some type of guns in them being used to intimidate and shoot people.



How can they sue Remington for an ad that was suposedley targeted at kids when the kids are bombarded on a daily basis by so much violence?



In most states a "kid" has to be at least 18 to legally purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun.

Lanza did murder his mom and stole her gun.



This lawsuit is ridiculous. Remington is an 200 year old American institution and I hope they can weather this lawsuit storm.

[Cape Cod Todd]

It really is amazing how many responding to this post think that this lawsuit is a good one and that gun manufacturers such as Remington produce death machines and that the NRA is protecting them and allowing people to kill.



The Newtown shooting was a tragedy but if the lunatic Lanza had instead forced his way onto a bus filled with little kids and went seat to seat with a machete hacking up and killing every single kid on that bus would we today be talking about enforcing "common sense machete laws"? Would this group of survivors be busy suing the machete manufacturer? What if Lanza forced his way onto that same bus with a can of gas and a match?



What is really perplexing is that most of the people that are all for suing and banning guns from millions of law abiding citizens due to the horrid actions of one unhinged madman are the same people that get all bent out of shape when one illegal alien murders a citizen and there are calls to put an end to illegal immigration.



The same goes when we are told that we cannot blame all Muslims when a group of them murder innocent people but somehow all legal law abiding gun owners are blamed when one lunatic madman shooter goes on a rampage?

[TamaraSavannah]

Where does this advertising occur?

What "made me" buy my first AR? The excellent hour long spiel my arms dealer gave me which at the end of it, he had me spending $1000 (it was an Armalite -10). I had been in the market for just a .22 rifle but after his talk, it became a -10.

After that, it was experience with that rifle and government elections that got me the next AR, through him, and then years after that, a birthday present for me while at my gun range.

I suppose if I have ever seen any advertisement, it has been in this or that gun magazine, maybe in the Shotgun News, okay admittedly, with Cheaper Than Dirt, probably on Gun Broker..............but the basic thing is, one has gone to those publications first.

It's not like they are being advertised, as they really are, on television, the radio, a full page ad in the newspaper, is it?

So where does such advertisement occur so it can influence?

As far as what influenced me to buy that first AR, so long ago? I suppose because it was a mix of both rifle I used in the service. The -16 (or whatever nomenclature it goes by) in configuration and the -14 in caliber......and the -14 is an excellent platform, just heavier than the 40X I shot in JROTC. As it was, I bought it as a carbine for those are easier for me. As it is, I buy carbines over full size.

Now, one might argue that because I used such rifles in the service, I should not be using similar as a civilian. Well, A and B. A: In my family's philosophy, we, as a privileged class, have to take at least basic ROTC so if the country should call, we are ready. As a veteran, should I not maintain the skills I have learned?

Granted, as the years roll on, if they have to call on me, at least nationally, they are rather scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

B: What is similar? Would one use the -15 in the service (or, say, the Uzi carbine)? I think not. Even if one were to say that today, single shot is often used, I think that in the service, one still would want the selective fire to fall back on. As far as the Uzi carbine goes, having that 16 inch barrel does not seem beneficial in the service.

As far as the -10 goes, there is the point that its military service is very limited and that the modern -10s are not even from the same source as those of the 50s.

All this said, mind you, if I believed what the other side says......which I don't.

Originally Posted by RedZin

"Self-defense" is a tricky marketing tactic with firearms. It instantly implies the use of deadly force against other human beings.
........

Well, quite frankly, it's rather hard to do self defense without it tipping over into the use of deadly force.

If I go at someone in hand to hand, there is about a fraction of a second before it becomes the potential to kill them. As I've said, "I'm going to put you in the hospital....and it is up to the Fates if it is the ER or the morgue.".

When you start engaging someone with martial skills to get them to break off their attack, if the situation occurs where they do die, the excuse of "I didn't mean to kill him" is no excuse. When you are using martial skills to break skin at least, it is deadly force.

[SeaMaj7]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

hee, hee, hee...chippin' away, chippin' away

This remark right there says it all.

Gun grabbing leftist BS!!!!