Sandy Hook families can sue Remington - Page 5

Sandy Hook families can sue Remington

This is a discussion on Sandy Hook families can sue Remington within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by NECCdude I was going to say something humorous about that ad but you know the lefties. Anyway, why would that ad make ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 61 to 75 of 75
Like Tree289Likes

Thread: Sandy Hook families can sue Remington

  1. #61
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by NECCdude View Post
    I was going to say something humorous about that ad but you know the lefties. Anyway, why would that ad make someone go out and shoot up a school??
    It wouldn't. But did you ever see a photograph of the shooter? When you saw it, did "macho" immediately come to mind? It probably didn't to Adam Lanza either. But, put that rifle in his hands and people would look at him differently. The ad guaranteed it.

    That's the argument that the attorneys will present in the lawsuit.
    OD*, dangerranger and BamaT like this.

  2. #62
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,720
    Quote Originally Posted by DG View Post
    It wouldn't. But did you ever see a photograph of the shooter? When you saw it, did "macho" immediately come to mind? It probably didn't to Adam Lanza either. But, put that rifle in his hands and people would look at him differently. The ad guaranteed it.

    That's the argument that the attorneys will present in the lawsuit.
    But how will they react when they find out the rifle was actually purchased and owned by a woman?
    OD* and Nmuskier like this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  3. #63
    VIP Member
    Array NECCdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    2,149
    Quote Originally Posted by DG View Post
    It wouldn't. But did you ever see a photograph of the shooter? When you saw it, did "macho" immediately come to mind? It probably didn't to Adam Lanza either. But, put that rifle in his hands and people would look at him differently. The ad guaranteed it.

    That's the argument that the attorneys will present in the lawsuit.
    I guess I should have phrased my question as: Why would that ad make any sane person go out and shoot up a school? But I see your point as to how attorneys would spin it.
    BamaT likes this.
    ďIt is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.Ē ― Benjamin Franklin

    Microwave radio technicians are fully deviated.
    FCC Radiotelephone and amateur radio licensed.
    Member SAF, GOA, NFOA, USCCA

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #64
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    But how will they react when they find out the rifle was actually purchased and owned by a woman?
    Depends on whether or not they believe that she actually made a "straw purchase" to keep her troubled son happy.
    BamaT likes this.

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,720
    Quote Originally Posted by DG View Post
    Depends on whether or not they believe that she actually made a "straw purchase" to keep her troubled son happy.
    If I remember correctly, he tried to buy a gun but was denied, so he killed her and took hers.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,538
    The plaintiffs argue that the company advertised or sensationalized weapons that "only belong on the battlefield". In my opinion, those are exactly the arms that the 2nd amendment are intended to protect. Sorry, judicial branch, you got it wrong. "Common use" is not in the constitution you swore to uphold. ", the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed." is.
    Havok, Bikenut, NECCdude and 3 others like this.
    Psalm 144:1

  8. #67
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by NECCdude View Post
    I guess I should have phrased my question as: Why would that ad make any sane person go out and shoot up a school? But I see your point as to how attorneys would spin it.
    It wouldn't. I own a Bushmaster. I'm not about to shoot up a school. But I'm not a troubled young man living in his mother's basement fantasizing about killing people in video games either.

    I'm just trying to show how this might play out and it doesn't look especially good for Remington. And although, I may be wrong, I think they actually bought the Bushmaster brand after Sandy Hook. If that's the case, lots of wisdom in that purchase.
    Havok likes this.

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,720
    Attorneys will try to prove whatever argument they are hired to prove, through whatever means necessary. There are no limits to the stupidity of the the things they will say to try to achieve this. Doesnít mean they will win the case though.
    OldVet, airslot and Nmuskier like this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  10. #69
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    If I remember correctly, he tried to buy a gun but was denied, so he killed her and took hers.
    I really didn't follow the case that closely, but if that's true, it simply reinforces the argument that she bought the gun to placate him. He then used it against her.

  11. #70
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Attorneys will try to prove whatever argument they are hired to prove, through whatever means necessary. There are no limits to the stupidity of the the things they will say to try to achieve this. Doesnít mean they will win the case though.
    No it doesn't. Reasonable people will prevail. They always do. Where is this being tried again?
    Havok and Nmuskier like this.

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,720
    Quote Originally Posted by DG View Post
    I really didn't follow the case that closely, but if that's true, it simply reinforces the argument that she bought the gun to placate him. He then used it against her.
    If that were the case he never would have tried to buy it. Just looked it up again. He wasnít actually denied, but they have a 14 day waiting pwriod and he didnít want to wait. She had purchased that gun, and others before he ever tried to purchase a gun.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

  13. #72
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    966
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    If that were the case he never would have tried to buy it. Just looked it up again. He wasnít actually denied, but they have a 14 day waiting pwriod and he didnít want to wait. She had purchased that gun, and others before he ever tried to purchase a gun.
    Thanks for clearing that up, but I don't think it will help Remington's case in this situation. Even if Remington wins, this case sets the precedent that a gun manufacturer can be sued. Remember the wrongful death lawsuits against the tobacco industry? How did that eventually end up? I hope Remington prevails but I feel like I'm cheering for the losing team.
    Havok likes this.

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,538
    @DG I've thought about the tobacco suit in the 80's. I think a valid argument is that cigarettes proper and advertised use leads to cancer and other health problems that the industry knew about and actively suppressed. School shootings are not advertised by Bushmaster as "proper use" I think they're on pretty solid ground with the hunting and target shooting advertising, plus all of the safety warnings in ads and owners manuals.

    Car manufacturers should be sued if their brake systems fail, and the company knew they were likely to fail, but suppressed a recall. Car manufacturers should not be sued if an 18 year old hot shot plays Tokyo Drift, while impaired, and kills someone.
    ...or if a religious fanatic rents a van to go run down dozens of people. That isn't the van manufacturer's liability either.

    This entire thing is ludicrous, and the CT Supreme Court should be impeached.
    Mike1956, matthew03 and niks like this.
    Psalm 144:1

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array matthew03's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    The plaintiffs argue that the company advertised or sensationalized weapons that "only belong on the battlefield". In my opinion, those are exactly the arms that the 2nd amendment are intended to protect. Sorry, judicial branch, you got it wrong. "Common use" is not in the constitution you swore to uphold. ", the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed." is.
    Needed to be posted again for it's value.
    Nmuskier likes this.
    Appalachian Concealment


    I don't train to fight some street urchin, I train to fight the evil version of myself, and that person scares me, because I know the time I put into my training on how to beat him.

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,720
    I think if anyone should be sued for painting this firearm as a murder weapon itís the mainstream media and anti gun politicians.
    msgt/ret and Nmuskier like this.
    a poor plan that is well executed will produce better results that a good plan that is poorly executed.

    This is America. I have the right to go places. You have the right to stay home. You have the right to be upset about me going places. I have the right to not care.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •