Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

[JoeB131]

Sorry snowflake your Nazi wishlist will not happen

Sorry, man, if Remington has to pay the Sandy Hook families... everyone else who was killed by a gun will sue.

Bye-bye gun industry...

They won't be so keen on the Second amendment once they start paying out money.

 

[flack]

And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.

What you asshats don't understand, is these companies are the gateway......if you can sue a gun maker for the illegal use of their product, car makers, booze makers, computer makers are all next in line........you moron.

If the Car Makers acted like the Gun Manufacturers, this would be their 2020 model.

And this would be their prime customer...

View attachment 289582

You see, funny thing. When people figured out hunting was largely just animal cruelty, and stopped doing that, the gun manufacturers had a problem. How to sell people something they would never use and didn't really need?

So they created a MARKET for military grade weapons for civilian use, and marketed them to the most unstable people.

That they made it easy for Nancy Lanza to own a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, is the problem. Did she think the Zombies were coming?

View attachment 289583

You are just wrong on so many fronts.

 

[K9Buck]

And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.

What you asshats don't understand, is these companies are the gateway......if you can sue a gun maker for the illegal use of their product, car makers, booze makers, computer makers are all next in line........you moron.

If the Car Makers acted like the Gun Manufacturers, this would be their 2020 model.

And this would be their prime customer...

View attachment 289582

You see, funny thing. When people figured out hunting was largely just animal cruelty, and stopped doing that, the gun manufacturers had a problem. How to sell people something they would never use and didn't really need?

So they created a MARKET for military grade weapons for civilian use, and marketed them to the most unstable people.

That they made it easy for Nancy Lanza to own a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, is the problem. Did she think the Zombies were coming?

View attachment 289583

You are just wrong on so many fronts.

He's always wrong. That's why I have him on ignore.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.

 

[flack]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.

From what I understand is he was too young to buy that type of weapon so advertising has no basis in this case. It will go nowhere.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry snowflake your Nazi wishlist will not happen

Sorry, man, if Remington has to pay the Sandy Hook families... everyone else who was killed by a gun will sue.

Bye-bye gun industry...

They won't be so keen on the Second amendment once they start paying out money.

Great no government guns 600 million guns in the publics hands

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

Lanza choose it because that's what his mother had when he murdered her and stole it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Every citizen needs WMD's so they can take out a thousand good citizens in under 5 minutes when they have bad day at a Vegas casino.

Hyperbole much? Just because you leftist dream of carrying out the next mass shooting doesn't mean others are

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Since Louisville manufactures a weapon that has killed more people than Remington Lousiville should be sued.

Is the purpose of that item to kill? What’s the worst mass killing with that weapon?

did you ever find that part of the 2nd that says only a well regulated militia is allowed to own guns yet???

Yes that’s how it starts. You must not read well.

no it doesnt,,,and the 2nd half says the people not the militia,,,

Yes it does. The 2nd half says those in a well regulated militia can have arms.

Wrong. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also, there is no militia until one is called up.

Bearing arms is a military term.

If it was strictly a military term in this case then it wouldn't say "...the people...".

 

[flack]

U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So you are saying that everyone that owns an AR15 is a mass murderer and there is no other purpose for an AR

I’m saying they can quickly and easily become a mass killer. That’s what the gun is for. It’s irresponsible to sell weapons for mass killing to the public.

Get a grip, it is because of people like you that the University of Virginia has canceled the 21-gun salute for its Veterans Day ceremony over concerns that firing weapons on campus could cause "panic" among students.

Actually it’s the fact that we have regular mass shootings. No other country regularly has mass shootings...

thats a lie,,,

No it's not.

I just did a search on number of mass shootings in America in 2018. Since 2019 isn't finished yet I went for the last full year.

There was a total of 323 mass shootings last year with 387 people being murdered and 1274 people being injured.

That is one mass shooting nearly every single day in 2018. Which means yes they happen on a regular basis here now.

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018 - Wikipedia


View attachment 289487

The problem with this argument is that Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms and have been doing so from the beginning, long before the first mass shooting.

The right to keep and bear arms has no bearing on mass shootings other than that the firearms are just a tool to commit mass killing. If it did, there would always have been mass shootings. This should tell any person with a modicum of common sense and critical thinking that the guns are not what is killing the people, per se.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is the purpose of that item to kill? What’s the worst mass killing with that weapon?

did you ever find that part of the 2nd that says only a well regulated militia is allowed to own guns yet???

Yes that’s how it starts. You must not read well.

no it doesnt,,,and the 2nd half says the people not the militia,,,

Yes it does. The 2nd half says those in a well regulated militia can have arms.

Wrong. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also, there is no militia until one is called up.

Bearing arms is a military term.

If it was strictly a military term in this case then it wouldn't say "...the people...".

There is an unorganized militia

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So a company can be sued when a customer intentionally misuses one of its products? The judge must be a complete loon.

How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.

It was misused because murder is against the law. Simple as that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That would be like suing Ford because somebody ran over your kid.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.

What you asshats don't understand, is these companies are the gateway......if you can sue a gun maker for the illegal use of their product, car makers, booze makers, computer makers are all next in line........you moron.

If the Car Makers acted like the Gun Manufacturers, this would be their 2020 model.

And this would be their prime customer...

View attachment 289582

And yet thousands more die in vehicles than by firearms anyway.

You see, funny thing. When people figured out hunting was largely just animal cruelty,...

If hunting is animal cruelty then the cruelty committed in all the pork, beef and chicken slaughterhouses must be off the scale.

So they created a MARKET for military grade weapons for civilian use, and marketed them to the most unstable people.

That they made it easy for Nancy Lanza to own a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, is the problem. Did she think the Zombies were coming?

Irrelevant and not your concern. Why a person chooses to own a firearm is no one else's business. It becomes the public's business when a murder is committed but in the eyes of the law, the weapon was only a tool.

 

[flack]

A fact sheet of the FBI’s 2018 crime statistics published Monday detailed some of the Bureau’s analysis of crime statistics, particularly studying the types of weapons used in murders. Rifles, as a particular category of firearm, were used to kill 297 people in 2018. By comparison, knives and other cutting instruments were the murder weapon for 1,515 murders in 2018.


The rifle category of firearms is a broad one comprised of bolt, pump, and lever-action firearms in addition to semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s, suggesting semi-automatic rifles comprise an even smaller number than the 297 total murders by rifle in 2018.

 

[2aguy]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.

This isn't about the merits of the case...this is simply setting the precedent that gun makers can be sued for anything.....and allowing left wing, democrat, anti-gun lawyers sue them into obedience......forcing them to stop making guns for civilians. The democrats want to take every gun maker to court, cost them millions and discourage them from resisting....since fighting back will put them out of business...this should have been squashed at the state level.....

 

[flack]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.

This isn't about the merits of the case...this is simply setting the precedent that gun makers can be sued for anything.....and allowing left wing, democrat, anti-gun lawyers sue them into obedience......forcing them to stop making guns for civilians. The democrats want to take every gun maker to court, cost them millions and discourage them from resisting....since fighting back will put them out of business...this should have been squashed at the state level.....

They will simply move out of the country.

 

[2aguy]

Great news. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public. Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.

The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun. From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle. IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind. Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.

The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.

This isn't about the merits of the case...this is simply setting the precedent that gun makers can be sued for anything.....and allowing left wing, democrat, anti-gun lawyers sue them into obedience......forcing them to stop making guns for civilians. The democrats want to take every gun maker to court, cost them millions and discourage them from resisting....since fighting back will put them out of business...this should have been squashed at the state level.....

They will simply move out of the country.

Yes, they will....which is just fine with the democrats.

 

[Leo123]

How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.

It wasn't 'made' to kill children and innocent souls and also it was never advertised to do so.