• 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

haymarket said:
Hunting is taking life.

So that leads us with recreation like target shooting - the main purpose of which is to be able to shoot better and that brings us back to shooting something that lives. I concede that there is stuff like skeet but a very small percentage of gun owners engage in that recreation.

I have no objections about guns for self defense. And the main purpose of that is to take somebody else life before they take yours or your families.

So it all keep coming back to that.
Click to expand...

Yes...taking life...for different purposes. War, food, self-defense. Your premise seems stuck on killing being 'wrong.' Obviously, it's not always...and so why should that design be wrong? Er...it's not.

And I also participate with guns that is recreational and has nothing to do with being a better shot/self-defense, etc. It's pure fun and altho the guns are real, they are not remotely ones I'd use for self-defense. I do win $$ tho.

YouTube
 
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...
Come on. While most ARs are really great they are not military grade. I do realize you are implying what the lawsuit my be stating. I hope.
 
haymarket said:
Because the main primary intended use for this tool is the taking of life. And that is NOT abusing the tool. It is using it just as designed and intended.
Click to expand...

And used to save life, provide food, all good. Again, your premise that all killing is wrong doesnt work. (or that the design to kill is wrong...how can it be when it saves lives, provides food?)
 
haymarket said:
Manufacturers get in the game and take the risk of injury. That is the way of the world. To insure them and protect them and shelter them from normal citizen suits is just plain wrong and that kind of special treatment is just plain favoritism that is discriminatory.
Click to expand...

What have the gun manufacturers done wrong creating their products? Please explain? What product liability issues are there?
 
haymarket said:
If a manufacturer of any product intends for that product to take a life when it is used properly, why are they not responsible for at least some of that.

They are saying - here is our product that is meant to kill. If you use it as intended, killing can result.
Click to expand...

So? One..not all killing is wrong.

Second.. the product sole purpose is not to kill.
 
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...
And if the driver of the vehicle kills someone do any surviving family members get too sue the manufacturer? We'll assume the drivers insurance lapsed or he didn't have any. Thanks for playing.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, does that mean that you also see this as a frivolous and baseless lawsuit?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I see it. I want to see the evidence. The plaintiffs are alleging the manufacturer misled buyers by lying in their advertising, which very well may be true.

It's going to discovery so we will know soon enough.
 
gdgyva said:
so anything dangerous to humans, we shouldnt make or manufacture? Companies should just say **** it, and never make better items because they may be used to hurt people?

Better hope the defendants never find anyone like me on the juries....
Click to expand...


The issue is SPECIAL and EXTRA protections for gun makers over those of everyday other manufacturers of products.
 
Lursa said:
Yes...taking life...for different purposes. War, food, self-defense. Your premise seems stuck on killing being 'wrong.' Obviously, it's not always...and so why should that design be wrong? Er...it's not.

And I also participate with guns that is recreational and has nothing to do with being a better shot/self-defense, etc. It's pure fun and altho the guns are real, they are not remotely ones I'd use for self-defense. I do win $$ tho.

YouTube
Click to expand...

The very small percentage of FUN users of guns pales in comparison with those who buy to provide a weapon against other things.
 
Lursa said:
I like your response but have a feeling that if they find the advertising angle legally valid, they'd just say the ads influenced the shooter whether they bought the gun or not.
Click to expand...

The advertising angle is a unique way. It might have legs. Its kind of like suing the Vape companies for kids injured with vape devices.. by claiming that vape manufactures are targeting children.

It would hard though to say that the Remington manufacturer would be responsible since the person who BOUGHT the firearm.. didn't do the shooting.

Now. if they argue "but but..Remington influenced the shooter to commit the mass shooting"... any good attorney should poke holes all in that theory. I would see if that guy owned a TV or a x box and what games they played and what showed on television..

Because..if we are going to argue that advertising could cause a mass shooting....well..did the advertising glorify a mass shooting? did it even show people being shot?

I would think then that an attorney would point out.. that the games on the x box..like hero.. or the shows on TV.. like any cop show.. any action show... would glorify and manipulate shooters... far far more than one Remington ad...

If they have a case that advertising cause the issue...there are far bigger providers of violent images than Remington....
 
zsu2357 said:
Come on. While most ARs are really great they are not military grade. I do realize you are implying what the lawsuit my be stating. I hope.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit has alot to do with a Connecticut law and specific ways advertisers advertise. Remington has apparently both claimed the ar15 was a military weapon to appeal to a specific buyer while also arguing in depositions the ar15 is not a military type weapon.

The case will now go to discovery which will expose the evidence surrounding it and answer the question in due time.
 
haymarket said:
The issue is SPECIAL and EXTRA protections for gun makers over those of everyday other manufacturers of products.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it...can you provide post numbers that list the special and extra protections?
 
haymarket said:
The very small percentage of FUN users of guns pales in comparison with those who buy to provide a weapon against other things.
Click to expand...

So? How many people who buy guns for self-defense and to protect their families is 'too many?'
 
haymarket said:
The issue is SPECIAL and EXTRA protections for gun makers over those of everyday other manufacturers of products.
Click to expand...

they arent lawmakers

if congress wants to put extra laws out there...gun manufacturers will follow them

to punish a company for putting a product on the market is ludicrious UNLESS they product is defective and did not act as intended

same crap as having to put warning signs on cups of coffee now..."contents MAY BE HOT"...well no **** sherlock

this is just another end run at the NRA and guns....cant get the laws changed lets go after the people that make them
 
Obscurity said:
I'm not sure how I see it. I want to see the evidence. The plaintiffs are alleging the manufacturer misled buyers by lying in their advertising, which very well may be true.

It's going to discovery so we will know soon enough.
Click to expand...

One key thing to remember is that the Sandy Hook shooter never bought the gun - he killed his mother and took it. It would seem to be very hard to prove that a dead person had paid any attention to advertising - rather than just took whatever guns were available.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia
 
jaeger19 said:
The advertising angle is a unique way. It might have legs. Its kind of like suing the Vape companies for kids injured with vape devices.. by claiming that vape manufactures are targeting children.

It would hard though to say that the Remington manufacturer would be responsible since the person who BOUGHT the firearm.. didn't do the shooting.

Now. if they argue "but but..Remington influenced the shooter to commit the mass shooting"... any good attorney should poke holes all in that theory. I would see if that guy owned a TV or a x box and what games they played and what showed on television..

Because..if we are going to argue that advertising could cause a mass shooting....well..did the advertising glorify a mass shooting? did it even show people being shot?

I would think then that an attorney would point out.. that the games on the x box..like hero.. or the shows on TV.. like any cop show.. any action show... would glorify and manipulate shooters... far far more than one Remington ad...

If they have a case that advertising cause the issue...there are far bigger providers of violent images than Remington....
Click to expand...

Yes I see it that way (mostly) too and was thinking of the Joe Cool Camel cigarette ads.

Except that the advertising is clearly still geared towards adults...is the assumption that adult males (sorry but this is the vast majority of spree/mass shooters) are incapable of making reasonable purchasing decisions and are 'fooled' into believing these guns are for military purposes? (Not to mention that shooting unarmed people is hardly a military task...for the most part)

I guess we'll see.
 
Obscurity said:
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?
Click to expand...
I would not respond by trying to violate people's civil liberties, and I have no sympathy for those who do respond that way.
 
haymarket said:
The very small percentage of FUN users of guns pales in comparison with those who buy to provide a weapon against other things.
Click to expand...

Wow..is that wrong.

Man.. you have a real paranoia about guns.
 
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...

You are failing to state a major area of product liability of law: Inherently unsafe products. Practically every state in the Union has an affirmative defense for defendants, which is that a product is inherently unsafe. This covers everything from weapons, cutlery, power tools, cleaning chemicals, and highly perishable and potentially poisonous products (such as shellfish), among others. You cannot sue DeWalt, for example, for having a hard sneeze while working a table saw and cutting off your own fingers, because the nature of table saws are inherently unsafe in order for them to function properly.
 
haymarket said:
Cars are made as a method of transportation. Guns are made as a method of taking life.
Click to expand...
And no car has ever taken a life? Got an El Camino a couple houses down literally smashed. I don't think the guys parents have considered suing GM.
 
Felis Leo said:
You are failing to state a major area of product liability of law: Inherently unsafe products. Practically every state in the Union has an affirmative defense for defendants, which is that a product is inherently unsafe. This covers everything from weapons, cutlery, power tools, cleaning chemicals, and highly perishable and potentially poisonous products (such as shellfish), among others. You cannot sue DeWalt, for example, for having a hard sneeze while working a table saw and cutting off your own fingers, because the nature of table saws are inherently unsafe in order for them to function properly.
Click to expand...

Guns would only qualify for this type of protection if manufacturers actually admitted that their product was inherently unsafe. Did that happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom