Gun manufacture can be sued

[USMC2112]

Come to think of it...same here....maybe I better look into suing the manufacturers....they are all defective in that regard.

And don't forget, look out for them swords, sabres, maces, slingshots, daggers, tanks, grenades, howitzers, boomerangs, etc....pretty much any weapon, as they were all 'designed to kill"

Exactly, as mine haven’t randomly jumped out and killed anyone either. Cain killed Abel with a stone, it isn’t what is in the hand, it is what is in the heart.

[Tfall]

I have a deer rifle designed to kill, I missed a deer once, can I sue for a gun that was designed to kill that didn't?

Was it a Remington?

[Bryanmc57]

"Snap-On tools aren't made to kill humans. Guns are."

That's the logic to be used. What passes for logic to you and me, does not need be used in a court case. Sad, but reality.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all my firearms combined...

[fishwest]

Already decided by congress and the Supreme Court. A manufacturer can’t be sued for the actions of the consumer.
This will fail if it even makes it to the Supreme Court of the US.

[knopf]

Let me get this straight, you libs think that it is Remington's responsibility to advertise that its guns should not be used to indiscriminately kill innocent school children. I guess that's why our clothes irons have stickers that say not to iron clothes while wearing them. Is there no common sense in the world anymore?

[mattmann7]

Let me get this straight, you libs think that it is Remington's responsibility to advertise that its guns should not be used to indiscriminately kill innocent school children. I guess that's why our clothes irons have stickers that say not to iron clothes while wearing them. Is there no common sense in the world anymore?

Your talking about CT. We are in the top 4 for highest taxes in the country and they are planning to add 47 more. Our former AG is now our Senator. When he was AG he was famous for filing suits on companies. He's pushing this also.

[zelmo]

Already decided by congress and the Supreme Court. A manufacturer can’t be sued for the actions of the consumer.
This will fail if it even makes it to the Supreme Court of the US.

Your talking about CT. We are in the top 4 for highest taxes in the country and they are planning to add 47 more. Our former AG is now our Senator. When he was AG he was famous for filing suits on companies. He's pushing this also.

Remington should file a motion for, and get, a change of venue. How could there possibly be someone in the community who won't feel compelled to go along with this?

See how quickly this gets tossed in a state that doesn't have crazies running it.

[berudd]

Read in the paper where the high court in Connecticut is allowing Sandy Hook survivors to sue Remmington because they made the Bushmaster used.

Is that going to open the door to sue vehicle manufactures if a person is hit by one of their vehicles?

The family of the actor that died in a car crash tried to sue Porsche. I think it was denied.

[c rig]

Your talking about CT. We are in the top 4 for highest taxes in the country and they are planning to add 47 more. Our former AG is now our Senator. When he was AG he was famous for filing suits on companies. He's pushing this also.

Matt, what I can't figure...why do the people of Ct keep voting people in who raise taxes?

Ct isn't alone, voters in may states routinely vote for head scratching candidates.

[c rig]

If they were secure in the safe, the kid wouldn't of had access, and being a minor, he shouldn't had the combination, especially with a mental handicap.In my opinion it all falls on her, the adult in the household.

He was 20 years old.

If you knew anything about high functioning autism/Aspergers, what this guy supposedly did is completely out of character for someone with his condition.

I cant judge the woman for how she raised her son. How he accessed the safe? Who knows? Maybe she had a key, maybe he peeked and saw the combination maybe he figured out the combination on his own...no one knows.

Lots of very strange circumstances from the beginning to the end, we'll never know the whole story.

[smalljawguy]

My guns must have a defect. They haven't ever killed a human. Rabbits and other game yep.

Was thinking the same thing. Most of my guns have never killed anything other than a paper target. And lord I hope they never do.

[fishwest]

So, people are so completely under the influence of advertising that they throw all common sense and caution out the window? Nope.

But these same people saying the advertising caused it will argue till they are blue that these violent video games allowing kids to kill in a very realistic virtual world have zero effect. Mix a little attorall with some Red Bull and Tour of duty 4 but that won’t caused a mentally ill pumped up kid to try it in real life!

[huskyjerk]

But these same people saying the advertising caused it will argue till they are blue that these violent video games allowing kids to kill in a very realistic virtual world have zero effect. Mix a little attorall with some Red Bull and Tour of duty 4 but that won’t caused a mentally ill pumped up kid to try it in real life!

Yeah video games are the problem That's why they don't have as many shootings in Japan...no video games!

[ColdSVT]

Was it a Remington?

I just point my remington 760 at deer and they fall over

[Gsmith223]

From what I've read it sounds like Remington's advertising for this is what lead to this, specifically suggesting it was a military grade weapon. It's driven by the marketing strategy. Whether that makes this okay or not is up for debate, but it's not as simple as "well now I can sue the car company since a drunk driver killed someone."

This right here. You cannot advertise a weapon as being more deadly than the next (assault rifle), then when someone uses it to kill a bunch of people be like we had no idea someone would use it to kill people. Gun manufactures have long been protected by the NRA and the gun lobby in congress. I dont think this is going to stay the norm, Americans are starting to see through the thin veil of protection. Just because its a constitutionally protected right doesn't give anyone full anonymity from issues that surround its use. No other right in this country is protected in this way. Americans should have full access to all statistics concerning guns in this country then and only then can we possibly scale back or enact certain forms of gun control as needed.

[Jeff La]

Well if it's advertising alone then anyone who gets a speeding ticket can sue most car manufacuturers as most have showed vehicles speeding down the road. How about suing the motortrend channel when someone gets hurt for street racing? Remington's adds didn't tell anyone to use it as a military weapon, they advertised them as a military grade weapon, meaning, it's quality is the same as used in the military, big difference.

[Bryanmc57]

This right here. You cannot advertise a weapon as being more deadly than the next (assault rifle), then when someone uses it to kill a bunch of people be like we had no idea someone would use it to kill people.

Cell phones are probably involved in more deaths in the US annually than the dreaded "assault rifles". The percentage of AR's in the country used in "mass shootings" is probably too small to be effectively calculated. Oh, and I don't beliieve I ever saw an ad where anyone claimed it was "more deadly". Maybe you can provide a link...

[Beast]

I must own the laziest guns on the planet, they just sit around collecting dust and wait to be cleaned. Problem with any new gun control laws, they are written by people and voted on by people who don't own a gun, don't know how a gun works, or the difference from one gun to another, and always over reach for the problem they were intended for.I wish they would put in the same effort into the cause rather then the tool, because let's be truthful about this.the same people would still commit the crime, and maybe in more horrific ways.
And far as background checks, I feel they aren't allowed to do what they were intended to do, you can't do a proper background check do to it being considered a invasion of privacy.You can't check if someone has mental issues unless there was a police record , otherwise it's patient- doctor confidence.

[Beast]

This right here. You cannot advertise a weapon as being more deadly than the next (assault rifle), then when someone uses it to kill a bunch of people be like we had no idea someone would use it to kill people. Gun manufactures have long been protected by the NRA and the gun lobby in congress. I dont think this is going to stay the norm, Americans are starting to see through the thin veil of protection. Just because its a constitutionally protected right doesn't give anyone full anonymity from issues that surround its use. No other right in this country is protected in this way. Americans should have full access to all statistics concerning guns in this country then and only then can we possibly scale back or enact certain forms of gun control as needed.

I would like to see any gun add that reads more deadly, there may be some the pertain to self defense, in which case a mass shooting wouldn't be self defense. and just for your info, a assault rife has a fully automatic switch, AR's don't have that switch, AR's are semi automatic, a class that covers about anything from 22's to shotguns.

[smalljawguy]

I would like to see any gun add that reads more deadly, there may be some the pertain to self defense, in which case a mass shooting wouldn't be self defense. and just for your info, a assault rife has a fully automatic switch, AR's don't have that switch, AR's are semi automatic, a class that covers about anything from 22's to shotguns.

Exactly. For those that don't understand, look at this pic and tell me which one is the bad one?

3-18-2019 10-13-47 AM.png