Defensive Carry banner

61 - 75 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nmuskier and OD*

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BamaT

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,644 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
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. Doesn’t mean they will win the case though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
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. Doesn’t mean they will win the case though.
No it doesn't. Reasonable people will prevail. They always do. Where is this being tried again? :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
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 wasn’t actually denied, but they have a 14 day waiting pwriod and he didn’t want to wait. She had purchased that gun, and others before he ever tried to purchase a gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
If that were the case he never would have tried to buy it. Just looked it up again. He wasn’t actually denied, but they have a 14 day waiting pwriod and he didn’t 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,644 Posts
@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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,310 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,840 Posts
I think if anyone should be sued for painting this firearm as a murder weapon it’s the mainstream media and anti gun politicians.
 
61 - 75 of 75 Posts
Top