• 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!

SCOTUS Allos Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms to Proceed

mrjurrs said:
We pass laws on product liability when the product, used correctly, causes damage to other people or the user. Cigarettes for example. Guns are designed to fire a projectile at speeds that cause damage when they impact. It is high time for gunmakers to be held liable for the designed use of their product.
Click to expand...

Hmm... what about vehicles designed to easily exceed posted speed limits?
 
independentusa said:
Well lets see. They built a weapon of war and developed a 'civilian" version of the weapon. Then they took the so called "civilian version" and advertised and sold it as a weapon of war to civilians. I do not think that the manufacture saw it having many uses except to kill humans, as it was not seemingly advertised as a hunting gun. So maybe the manufacture did wrong in how they built, advertised and sold the weapon to civilians.
Click to expand...
No maybe. The manufacturer did nothing wrong.

Even if this was a weapon of war, that would not make it wrong to sell it to civilians. And it isn't a weapon of war.

I haven't seen the ads in question, but I don't think we should take the anti-gun people's word for it that the gun was advertised as a weapon of war either. I suspect that they are exaggerating the nature of the ads.
 
independentusa said:
Well lets see. They built a weapon of war and developed a 'civilian" version of the weapon. Then they took the so called "civilian version" and advertised and sold it as a weapon of war to civilians. I do not think that the manufacture saw it having many uses except to kill humans, as it was not seemingly advertised as a hunting gun. So maybe the manufacture did wrong in how they built, advertised and sold the weapon to civilians.
Click to expand...

They didn't sell it to the shooter

Dodge builds cars and advertising shows them racing. Can an idiot that kills a bus full of nuns sue Dodge?
 
mrjurrs said:
We pass laws on product liability when the product, used correctly, causes damage to other people or the user. Cigarettes for example. Guns are designed to fire a projectile at speeds that cause damage when they impact. It is high time for gunmakers to be held liable for the designed use of their product.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you serious? I suppose you would limit gun makers to making only one model of gun, called "The Government Model" - it costs quite a lot, it doesn't work much and you can't ever fire it. ;)
Click to expand...


Not exactly.
 
Obscurity said:
The plaintiffs are arguing Remington misled buyers with ads that targeted a specific type of person, promoting the firearm and its military styling and useage.

This in turn is what the plaintiffs are alleging. You should not be promoting military or military type weaponry for civilian use. That's what they're using to sue remington.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

How do you stand on the tried and true .38 revolver?

The pump shotgun?

The Colt .45 revolver?

The bolt action rifle?

The single shot rifle?
 
mrjurrs said:
We pass laws on product liability when the product, used correctly, causes damage to other people or the user. Cigarettes for example. Guns are designed to fire a projectile at speeds that cause damage when they impact. It is high time for gunmakers to be held liable for the designed use of their product.
Click to expand...

Cars.... When used as designed can and will kill people.
 
The Assualt Rifle-15 is a horrible satanic weapon meant to kill innocents. /sarcasm
 
Fledermaus said:
So... Advertising.

But the shooter didn't buy the weapon. He stole it. After committing a murder.

And how would the advertising be "deceptive"?
Click to expand...


I have no idea, which is why I am not sure how I feel about this lawsuit. If remington did indeed advertise this as a military grade and type weapon, then that may have become a problem.

This ruling allows that case to go to discovery, so we will know soon enough.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Yes, but what these people are alleging is not true. It isn't a military weapon. And there would be nothing wrong with civilians owning it even if it was a military weapon.

Does anyone know if Remington can still have these people's homes and retirement accounts seized to recoup their legal costs once the lawsuit fails?

I assume yes, but I'd prefer to know for sure.
Click to expand...

Well that's the idea. Remington mislead the public by claiming it isn't a military weapon but advertising it as such.

IDK how this goes, frankly.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
WTF? Did you, by chance, miss the militia reference in the 2A? The 2A exists precisely for the purpose of protecting civilian ownership of militia suitable arms. The 2A is not about target, sport or hunting uses of arms and contains explicit language to that effect.
Click to expand...

That's not my opinion. That's what the plaintiffs are alleging; if I misstated, I apologize, but that's not my opinion, it's essentially what the suit is arguing.
 
Fledermaus said:
Interesting.

How do you stand on the tried and true .38 revolver?

The pump shotgun?

The Colt .45 revolver?

The bolt action rifle?

The single shot rifle?
Click to expand...

See above - Not my opinion, what the underlying plaintiff argument seems to be.
 
Obscurity said:
Well that's the idea. Remington mislead the public by claiming it isn't a military weapon but advertising it as such.
Click to expand...
It's not a military weapon. The only people who might have been misled are people who think that it is a military weapon.

And I don't trust the anti-gun people to accurately characterize the ads. So far as I'm concerned, I've seen no evidence that Remington claimed that this is a military weapon.

But since it doesn't even matter whether this was a military weapon or not, who cares if there was an erroneous claim that it was?
 
Toggle Almendro said:
It's not a military weapon. The only people who might have been misled are people who think that it is a military weapon.

And I don't trust the anti-gun people to accurately characterize the ads. So far as I'm concerned, I've seen no evidence that Remington claimed that this is a military weapon.

But since it doesn't even matter whether this was a military weapon or not, who cares if there was an erroneous claim that it was?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to claim these are anti-gun people. These are parents who lost kindergarten age children to a mentally ill mass shooter. We as a society should be seeking to care for these individuals.

Technically all weapons are military. The problem here isn't that the parents are anti-gun; I'm assuming if your kindergartner was gunned down and you lived in this society you would seek to do something, anything, to make their life have meaning, no?

This is an exceedingly difficult societal question. Kindergartners were gunned down en masse by a psychopath.

On the one hand we have a political party that argues all of this is due to mental illness, but on the other, they don't actually provide funding or policy solutions for the demon they think is at fault.

Now, personally, I don't think Remington should be sued for their weapons being used to kill people.

However, if they drove sales of this weapon by promoting it was a military grade weapon for civilian use, and their advertising broke state law (which is the premise here), then I'm not sure how that is reconciled.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... what about vehicles designed to easily exceed posted speed limits?
Click to expand...

Not quite, a vehicle moving at above posted speeds is breaking a law. That changes who is liable, thanks for playing.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is with the joint and several liability concept used in civil law. The scam works like this: you invent a huge amount of damages (after all, many human lives were lost), you know that it is possible to convince a jury that some entity with deep pockets is partly (say 2%?) liable for those damages and can very likely convince a jury to award the plaintiff(s) 2% of their huge actual damages claims and to toss in a generous amount of punitive damages.

Of course, its hard to get a jury to agree that the maker of any tool used to inflict damage was not at least partly (2%?) responsible for its potential for criminal abuse. After all, real suffering did result from that tool's abuse and much sympathy and/or empathy for the injured parties is a hard thing to ask the jury to ignore.

What will likely result is for the gun maker to settle since they stand a good chance to lose big in a jury trial. That, of course, is not justice but it does make the very well paid lawyers (on both sides) happy. I am willing to bet that each defense lawyer will end up with more money than any of the defendants (individually) get.
Click to expand...

Well said. That's exactly how it works. As an attorney friend of mine once told me, the system isn't about justice, it's about how things can be made to look. And that's why he cautioned me against loading up my defensive handgun with my own reloads. He said any good prosecutor in a criminal trial or plaintiff's lawyer in a civil suit would paint me out to be a blood thirsty monster who built his own ammunition with evil intentions.

So, yes, we don't hold manufacturers liable for the misuse of their product, but a good lawyer can often sway a jury the other way. They just need to make Remington look at least a little guilty.
 
Fledermaus said:
And the cars subject to product liability laws.... They were working properly or improperly?
Click to expand...

They were working as designed, the Pinto for example.

"What types of problems cause product liability actions?
Most product liability cases arise because of manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn consumers of possible harm. A manufacturing defect means that a single product was produced in a faulty manner that makes it prone to cause injury. For instance, let's say a manufacturer produces 1,000 lawn mowers and 998 operate perfectly. However, in the building process, two lawn mowers were not put together properly. Those two lawn mowers have a manufacturing defect.



A design defect is different. This means that the product itself is flawed in its creation. A lawn mower with a design defect means that all such mowers have the potential to cause harm because of an inherent flaw in the creation of the product. Take the example of a swimming pool that places the diving board near a sloping floor that is not deep enough for divers. This design defect means that a certain number of divers will hit their heads on the pool floor when they dive into the pool.

The last type of defect results from a failure to warn consumers of possible harm that can result from foreseeable misuse of the product."
 
Obscurity said:
I have no idea, which is why I am not sure how I feel about this lawsuit. If remington did indeed advertise this as a military grade and type weapon, then that may have become a problem.

This ruling allows that case to go to discovery, so we will know soon enough.
Click to expand...

The term "Military Grade" is both inaccurate and meaningless in this case.

That would be like calling a factory Dodge Charger a "NASCAR Grade" vehicle.

It is a buzz phrase meant to elicit certain emotions.

We have had real military grade weapons in the publics hands since there was a military.
 
mrjurrs said:
They were working as designed, the Pinto for example.

"What types of problems cause product liability actions?
Most product liability cases arise because of manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn consumers of possible harm. A manufacturing defect means that a single product was produced in a faulty manner that makes it prone to cause injury. For instance, let's say a manufacturer produces 1,000 lawn mowers and 998 operate perfectly. However, in the building process, two lawn mowers were not put together properly. Those two lawn mowers have a manufacturing defect.



A design defect is different. This means that the product itself is flawed in its creation. A lawn mower with a design defect means that all such mowers have the potential to cause harm because of an inherent flaw in the creation of the product. Take the example of a swimming pool that places the diving board near a sloping floor that is not deep enough for divers. This design defect means that a certain number of divers will hit their heads on the pool floor when they dive into the pool.

The last type of defect results from a failure to warn consumers of possible harm that can result from foreseeable misuse of the product."
Click to expand...

Did the Pinto explode by design?

No.

So what did the rifle do that would be covered under liability laws?
 
Obscurity said:
Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed : NPR

Breaking story so I assume it will be updated.



This is a groundbreaking lawsuit and opens the door wide for future lawsuits.

What say ye?
Click to expand...

It's one way of forcing gun makers out of business and thus enact a back door gun ban.

I can't see the families winning but if they do it will put a proverbial fox in the hen house.


What next, would the family of a person killed in traffic accident be able to sue Ferrari or Porsche ?
 
mrjurrs said:
Not quite, a vehicle moving at above posted speeds is breaking a law. That changes who is liable, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring that the killing of those school children was also illegal. Keep on playing your ignorant word games.
 
=haymarket;1070882699]I say that the US Constitution in effect guarantees the right to sue in court and these people are entitled to sue.
Click to expand...
I cut the sh** out of man hand a while back with a butcher knife and needed quite a few stitches. Did I miss a chance here? Should I have sued the manufacturer of the knife? I mean I shouldn't have been able to get it that sharp,therefore it was dangerous.
Right of the United States to Sue. | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The idea that we pass special laws to protect gun manufactures is so ass backwards that it is an offense against common sense.
Click to expand...
The only way gun manufactures should be held libel is if the firearm malfunctions and harms the user or someone in the proximity.
If indeed we pass your "special laws" it is only to protect them from frivolous lawsuits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom