Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Gun Maker for Shooting

[WuWei]

So what do you hoplophobes hope is the end result of this suit?

[bigtwnvin]

They’ll sue, lawyers will salivate over the 60 (likely) percent cut of the settlements but these cases will be heard in liberal-socialist Connecticut. It will be entertaining to see how plaintiffs counsel distort facts to build a case of an object built under license simply walked out and killed all by itself.
The Sandy Hook shooter was a mentally deranged freak detached completely from reality who used a legally acquired weapon under Conn. law by the shooters mother who he subsequently murdered as well prior to his rampage.
The carnage was carried out by a human being, granted that person is locked away without resources to satisfy some financial compensation to justify the loss of life but Connecticut allowed the manufacturer to build, market and sell the weapon in accordance with state law.
It’s another end around to put the gun manufacturers out of business.

[WildRose]

You don’t seem to understand conservatives, conservatism, or why the legislation was passed protecting them.

Unlike other manufacturers they were specifically being targeted with lawsuits with the intent of putting them out of business greatly endangering the entire industry and our 2nd Amendment Rights.

[WildRose]

Tobacco was being used lawfully and the basis for the anti tobacco suits was their fabricating studies to show smoking was less harmful and addicting than it actually was along with a broad conspiracy within the industry’s executives to that end.

Smoking is never safe for anyone firearms are always safe when used lawfully and properly unless there is a manufacturing or ammunition flaw.

The two have nothing in common.

[WildRose]

What good exactly could come from this lawsuit except for it being thrown out on the merits?

[WildRose]

A lawyers first duty is to serve justice. They are fabricating a case here solely for profit and to push an anti gun political agenda not to serve justice or their clients.

[BlueTex]

@WildRose

A lawyers first duty is to serve justice. They are fabricating a case here solely for profit and to push an anti gun political agenda not to serve justice or their clients.

Have you actually read the lawsuit?

[WildRose]

Actually as a country we are weenies when it comes to dealing with/living with pain compared to most of the rest of the world.

What they are guilty of is producing a product American Patients demand.

[WildRose]

Enough of it to see what they are doing and why.

[WildRose]

"Uncomfortable questions I don’t want to answer are just “silly”.

Deflect and move on.

[WildRose]

The bankruptcy of US firearms manufacturers.

If they are successful the next target will be ammunition manufacturers.

[Bigjohn]

So you want them as a protected class or above the law?

[Bigjohn]

So why dont we allow the CDC to do studies, which they are currently banned from doing, in regards to gun deaths in this country? Seems fair

[Borgia_dude]

Deleted. Old pist

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@WuWei

Because no other group is attacked like this. Show me a case of a car manufacturer being sued because their vehicle was used to run over somebody.

Complete BS… The model used to begin to sue gun manufacturers that resulted in this legislation was the tobacco industry lawsuits.

There is no correlation between a product that is harmful to everyone who uses it and one that only harms a very small number of people when it is misused. There is absolutely no question that this is a nuisance suit intended to harass and punish Remington regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) behind it.

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@WuWei

The Chief is right, this needs to go through the process. And thrown out like it was by the first judge. With prejudice. This is nothing more than lashing out at deep pockets and trying to put a company out of business to work around the Constitution. Their lawyers need to be disbarred when it’s over.

That paragraph sounds like the paragraph of someone triggered… The question still stands… Is the gun industry on such precarious grounds that they can’t make a case in front of a jury?

The point is that they should not have to. The suit is frivolous … intended to cause financial harm to a company that did nothing wrong. The plaintiffs have zero chance of prevailing, but they don’t care because that is not their purpose.

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@WuWei

It was already dismissed by a judge.

And the dismissal was appealed to the supreme court who are now allowing the lawsuit to go to trial… Is there in defect in this process?

Which proves my point … they appealed to run up the cost.

[Samm]

@WuWei

Among the clippings found in his room, there was a story from The New York Times about a man who shot at schoolchildren in 1891.

He was also living in almost total isolation in his room, spending most of his time on the internet playing World of Warcraft and other video games.

Wiki

So I’m sure we can expect further lawsuits to ensure justice is served.

Not to mention the manufacturer of the gun safe that he managed to get into after he killed his mother. I wonder if this group would be suing Springfield or Ruger or whoever, if the gun he stole from her was made by one of them?

[Samm]

@BlueTex

@WuWei

Yes. Their lawyers are defective.

Perhaps you didn’t see my reference to Chief’s post?

Do guns cause cancer?

Defective? They got their case going to trial… Now Remington can defend themselves in front of Connecticut jury. Discovery is going to be fun…

But defend themselves from what? What did they do that they need to defend?

[Samm]

@komobu

I initially thought they were suing Remington because their product killed children. Then in this thread I learned that they are suing Remington not for their product but because of their advertising campaign. No one has been able to answer how their advertising campaign contributed to the death of their children.

We must have missed the ad that said “If your mother won’t buy you a Remington Bushmaster to shoot up a school, kill her and take her’s to do the job.”