My 2 cents is that Remington should not be able to be sued for this. However, stricter gun laws in general are currently needed in the US.
I’d be stunned if either one were to kill someone. However, the gun is not typically the object that inflicts injury; that is the bullet. In a bat beating, the bat is the object used to inflict injury.
So the hand and arm that swings the bat is different than the hand that holds the gun and the finger that squeezes the trigger? The mind that controlled the bat and reasoned murder was just is different than the mind of the person who used a gun?
I think you should accept that facts proved your doubts unfounded and move on like a man rather than play semantics games which you are also losing.
Given the things people have sued over, I don’t think this suit should get dismissed that easily.
Huh?
I have no idea what this means.
Are you trying to say that it’s always the fault of the person behind the weapon? I agree.
Do you agree you were wrong about what method is used more to kill kids in school?
Are you trying to get me to make some kind of concession before you clarify what you meant here:
“The mind that controlled the bat and reasoned murder was just is different than the mind of the person who used a gun?”
Do you say a B29 killed a lot of people in Hiroshima?
I’ll accept that as your admission of being a moron for doubting that guns were used more often than bats in cases of students being murdered at school.
Ok so you were just trying to be annoying all along. But if guns were eliminated then I’d guess bullet casualties would go down as well.
And then after all that maybe one day the idea that bats kill more than guns in schools would be accurate. (or bullets if we insist on wasting our time with games)
Maybe, with Sorcerer Mickey’s help, both of those objects can become killers!
Now you’re just sad.
I’m enjoying this thoroughly, so much that it surprises me
I still go back to my original premise that short of design flaw that causes injury (like the Remington Shotgun that someone pointed out)…I just don’t see how a gun manufacturer can be liable for death and injury.
This would open up a huge can of worms, that would make only the Lawyers richer.
2 Likes
Rifle, by the way.
Thanks for the correction!
1 Like
Similar to cigarettes, I think the responsibility lies in how it’s marketed.
Possibly so. On the other hand I think that there are legit reasons you might want to market the “military” aspect with guns:
-
many gun enthusiasts and owners are veterans who have experience with and liked attributes that can be described as “military style”
-
many products – including knives, another deadly weapon – are marketed as “military grade” parts or toughness already. I see this at least once a day on TV ads. This plays on the perception that mil spec items are more reliable or rugged, or even better tested, but has nothing to do with the lethality. This also applies to #1 above for people who aren’t veterans.
There are others, but I’m lazy lol.
So marketing yes probably, but there are a number of real minefields there
I believe NYC, under Republican Giuliani, sued gun manufacturers so it isn’t a partisan issue.
If Slaughter, Massacre, Killing Spree, etc are used on the marketing I think there is an issue.
If a gun is marketed towards offensive, non hunting purposes, as opposed to marketing for Defensive/protective purposes, I can see there being an issue.
Or if gun ads being targeted toward loner, antisocial personalities, or websites. Etc.
A gun marketed as military grade isn’t an issue IMO.
I agree with this.
I don’t agree with this. “Offensive” is a vague, malleable term that can mean anything to anyone.
Also, I would say that there are perfectly legitimate non-hunting uses and that marketing should not be restricted to “hunting”
To my knowledge no manufacturer is marketing toward the antisocial crowd.
Possibly, but then therein lies the problem. The lawsuit is inherently open to this sort of argument