• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Great news! Remington files for bankruptcy

You are wrong. Remington marketed the AR-15 assault rifle to Adam Lanza. They have blood on their hands and will legally be found in court as responsible.

Remington marketed guns in the hands of high-risk individuals. This is no different than cigarette companies marketing to children.

Why do you make **** up? Lanza stole the gun from his mother. How did the market the gun directly to him? What about everyone else that responsibly owns one. The hell with them because 'Bucky' says so? Pft....
 
They can't stay afloat because, in our capitalistic society, they cannot create a profit despite being popped up by the NRA and second amendment loons residing in Congress, the Senate, and courts.

Everyone in Congress, the Senate and the Courts swear to uphold the second amendment. Those that defend our liberties are honorable.

You who ignorantly jumps for glee at this bankruptcy, or would place the blame on tool-makers rather than murderers, are the loon.

Why do you bother prattling about guns when everytime you open your mouth you prove you're an ignoramus on the subject?
 
Why do you make **** up? Lanza stole the gun from his mother. How did the market the gun directly to him? What about everyone else that responsibly owns one. The hell with them because 'Bucky' says so? Pft....

It is called negligent entrustment. Remington was marketing the AR-15 as a cool weapon used by soldiers in combat.

It is illegal for food companies to sell certain foods or market certain foods as healthy, etc...The same with financing, loans, etc..
 
Firearms and Negligence Cases

If the injury or death occurred through the use of a weapon that wasn’t defective, recovery may still be possible under a negligence theory. To succeed in a negligence claim the injured person must show that the defendant owed a duty to the injured person, that the duty was breached, and that the breach of the duty was the cause of the injury.

Product Liability and Guns - FindLaw
 
It is called negligent entrustment. Remington was marketing the AR-15 as a cool weapon used by soldiers in combat.

It is illegal for food companies to sell certain foods or market certain foods as healthy, etc...The same with financing, loans, etc..

It is a cool weapon. Again, Lanza stole it from his mother. I highly doubt he was thinking about who the gun was made by while choosing which weapon to kill a bunch of people with. If she had a different one, he would have used that.
 
It is a cool weapon. Again, Lanza stole it from his mother. I highly doubt he was thinking about who the gun was made by while choosing which weapon to kill a bunch of people with. If she had a different one, he would have used that.

I doubt that. From what I read Lanza was a very particular person. He only ate his foot a certain way and probably had a specific gun he used when playing video games.

Remington is definitely culpable. More gun companies will suffer the same fate as gun violence increases.
 
It is called negligent entrustment. Remington was marketing the AR-15 as a cool weapon used by soldiers in combat.

It is illegal for food companies to sell certain foods or market certain foods as healthy, etc...The same with financing, loans, etc..

You still don't get that Remington didn't make or market the Bushmaster AR-15, and the middle aged mom who bought it likely wasn't influenced by any male-focused marketing.

PS: Soldiers in combat aren't taught or ordered to kill children.
 
I doubt that. From what I read Lanza was a very particular person. He only ate his foot a certain way and probably had a specific gun he used when playing video games.

Remington is definitely culpable. More gun companies will suffer the same fate as gun violence increases.

Claiming that Remington is culpable is like claiming that Little Debbie is culpable. Neither had anything to do with the Sandy Hook shooting.
 
you're lying. Remington's flagship product is the Remington 700 which was for decades, the main choice for hunters. There have been quality issues with the 700 for decades and Savage makes a more accurate rifle for less money. Remington 1100s used to dominate skeet shooting but in the last 20 years, the far more reliable (no O rings to break) Beretta semi autos have far eclipsed the 1100 and its brother the 1187. Recently Remington introduced the Versamax semi auto that is an excellent shotgun (we have two) but that's limited market. Remington's attempt to make a semi auto self defense pistol sort of flopped at first.

I don't know anyone who would buy a Bushmaster and not because of Lanza. the SIG MCX-used by the guy who massacred all the gays in Orlando, used one and most dealers cannot keep those MCXs in stock since they are so well made

I hear post 2007 Remington 870's are absolute garbage QC, which is why my express tactical jams/rusts so easily. On /r/guns they call them Rustingtons.

IIRC some company bought them and ran the company into the ground, milking the goodwill of their reliability, kinda like Pyrex.
 
It baffles me how these CEO's and companies executives can sleep at night knowing their products is involved in the killing of innocent children and civilians. They literally have blood on their hands.

Would this be a problem for any baseball bat manufacturer, knife manufacturer, blunt object manufacturer, chemical manufacturer, etc. etc.? Or does your position only apply to gun manufacturers?
 
Would this be a problem for any baseball bat manufacturer, knife manufacturer, blunt object manufacturer, chemical manufacturer, etc. etc.? Or does your position only apply to gun manufacturers?

The intended purpose of a gun is to end another's life. The intended purpose of a baseball bat is to hit a baseball.
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/beleaguered-gun-maker-remington-files-bankruptcy-n847316

Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger, Sig Sauer, burn all those companies into the ground.

It baffles me how these CEO's and companies executives can sleep at night knowing their products is involved in the killing of innocent children and civilians. They literally have blood on their hands.

This is a great sign. The people are speaking. Good Americans don't want to give money to blood companies like Remington.

Are you serious, do t=you think that if they do go belly up that there will be no more guns? That's like saying if Ford and GM go belly up that Toyota won't fill the void.
 
No it isn't.

Ya buddy, guns were created for their aesthetic value.

The Ottomans were peaceful people trying to spread their gospel through non-violence means with firearms.
 
You can't fight the inevitability of solar/electric vehicles.
I'd LOVE to get into a conversation with you about (especially) electric vehicles...

How exactly are electric vehicles better for the environment than gas vehicles?

How exactly are they more convenient than gas fueled vehicles?

Can an electric car be "refueled" at a similar speed that a gasoline car is?

Do we have enough supply in our electrical grid to handle the vastly increased demand that a very high quantity of electric cars would require us to have?

How costly are cars going to be without being subsidized by the government, and how costly will replacement parts for all the electronics and batteries be? (We all know that electronics/batteries cost a lot and do not have a very long life)...

What would happen if the power would go out for an extended period of time?

Is making and disposing all of these batteries environmentally friendly?

How are electric cars environmentally friendly when most electricity in the USA is currently being produced with the burning of fossil fuels?

I could honestly go on and on about it, but my point is that there are MANY questions and concerns about the switch-over to electric vehicles that are yet unanswered, but yet here we are pushing forward anyway...
 
I could honestly go on and on about it, but my point is that there are MANY questions and concerns about the switch-over to electric vehicles that are yet unanswered, but yet here we are pushing forward anyway...

People said the same thing about the internet and bitcoin. Once the box is opened, you cannot close it.
 
Ya buddy, guns were created for their aesthetic value.

The Ottomans were peaceful people trying to spread their gospel through non-violence means with firearms.

I've got multiple firearms whose intended purpose is not to end another's life. In fact, none of my guns are meant to kill anyone - even the self defense guns are only intended to stop the threat, and as firearm injuries are only fatal about 20% of the time, even shooting someone doesn't mean that I am expecting them to die.
 
The intended purpose of a gun is to end another's life. The intended purpose of a baseball bat is to hit a baseball.

Once again you miss the point...

First off, the intended purpose of a gun is NOT always to end another person's life... They are regularly used for hunting/sporting/target shooting etc. etc.

Secondly, and more importantly, the intended purpose doesn't matter in the point I made to you... The point I'm making is that those other manufacturers are no different than gun manufacturers in the regard that those products (whatever their intended purpose may be) are also being used to kill people. You are being dishonest in your "blood on their hands" position when you say that for gun manufacturers, but not the other manufacturers I mentioned. Those products are also being used to murder people...
 
People said the same thing about the internet and bitcoin. Once the box is opened, you cannot close it.

Care to address any of his points?
 
I've got multiple firearms whose intended purpose is not to end another's life. In fact, none of my guns are meant to kill anyone - even the self defense guns are only intended to stop the threat, and as firearm injuries are only fatal about 20% of the time, even shooting someone doesn't mean that I am expecting them to die.

I call complete BS.

"Stop the threat" means to kill. If a criminal was intent on killing you, are you telling me your self-defense guns wouldn't "stop the threat?"
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/beleaguered-gun-maker-remington-files-bankruptcy-n847316

Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger, Sig Sauer, burn all those companies into the ground.

It baffles me how these CEO's and companies executives can sleep at night knowing their products is involved in the killing of innocent children and civilians. They literally have blood on their hands.

This is a great sign. The people are speaking. Good Americans don't want to give money to blood companies like Remington.
Four words: Thank you for Smoking
 
Care to address any of his points?

I am here to talk about guns, not cars or knives, or baseball bats.

Why is it that anytime someone pro-gun control wants to talk about guns, the subject always gets changed to automobiles and drugs?
 
I agree this is great news. Remington will be able to write off some debits, reorganize, and then focus on making quality firearms again.
 
Back
Top Bottom