Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Gun Maker for Shooting

[Plasmaball]

Who gives a ■■■■■

[WuWei]

@Plasmaball

You clearly arent the right person for this topic.

For you? I can understand why you feeeeeeel that way.

[WuWei]

@Plasmaball

Who gives a ■■■■■

Oh I know you don’t, that’s never been in doubt.

[Kevhead]

@travisg

What would stop families from suing beer companies for a drunk driver killing children on the road?

I always found it interesting that the bar is liable for over serving customers. I know busy bars have a hard time keeping track of who buys what but if someone kills someone after they been in your bar you’re kinda screwed

[WuWei]

@Kevhead

@travisg

What would stop families from suing beer companies for a drunk driver killing children on the road?

I always found it interesting that the bar is liable for over serving customers. I know busy bars have a hard time keeping track of who buys what but if someone kills someone after they been in your bar you’re kinda screwed

Remington didn’t serve the gun.

[conan]

This is how I’m seeing it as well.

Once in while we are in agreement.

@WorldWatcher

By allowing the trial the SCOTUS is simply allowing a full record of evidence and testimony to be developed and matured through the trial and appeals process. Once there is testimony, evidence, and a lower court ruling it will proceed through an appeals process and likely end up back at the SCOTUS.

[Bodecea]

@Sknyluv

A bit more context here:

The decision](https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR331/331CR865.pdf) says that the families may pursue one of their specific claims in the case: that Remington, the manufacturer of Bushmaster’s version of the AR-15 rifle used during the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, knowingly marketed the gun for use by people to “carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/us/sandy-hook-families-win-remington-case-appeal/index.html

So not to pull this card but, I saw an episode of Law and Order about this once (I know), but the crux here was that charges were allowed against the gun manufacturer because they did something specific that, in one way or the other, allowed the guns to be used to kill people. I think in the case of the episode, the manufacturer was aware that their guns could be modified easily to allow them to shoot more bullets, faster. So in this case, it seems like Remington is being accused of knowingly marketing their guns in a way to promote their use in mass shootings.

Seems like a stretch, but I don’t think gun manufacturers should be completely shielded from lawsuits and liabilities. There’s opportunity here, but both sides should tread cautiously.

Wait…you had to provide more context?.. I’m shocked.

[komobu]

@GrandWazoo

They are blaming the gun maker for how their weapon is marketed. Did you see the ads? They all made reference to their weapon in military terms. That is a far cry from marketing the weapon for sport shooting. I think they have a case.

Except if I remember correctly didnt the shooter steal the weapon from his mother? If that is the case and my memory is correct, what difference does it make how they marketed it if he didnt purchase it but stole it?

[komobu]

@Bodecea

way or the other, allowed the guns to be used to kill people. I think in the case of the episode, the manufacturer was aware that their guns could be modified easily to allow them to shoot more bullets, faster. So in this case, it seems like Remington is being accused of knowingly marketing their guns in a way to promote their use in mass shootings.

Seems like a stretch, but I don’t think gun manufacturers should be completely shielded from lawsuits and liabilities. There’s opportunity here, but both sides should tread cautiously.

Should the family of the woman killed in Charlottesville be able to sue Chrysler because James Fields was driving a Dodge?

[TheRedComet]

Oh Jesus Christ.

[Sknyluv]

@TheRedComet

Oh Jesus Christ.

Everything I know about law, I learned from Jack McCoy.

[mikee]

@komobu

Should the family of the woman killed in Charlottesville be able to sue Chrysler because James Fields was driving a Dodge?

Yes, she should be allowed to sue and (swiftly) lose.

[WuWei]

@Sknyluv

There’s opportunity here

“Opportunity”? To what?

[WuWei]

@komobu

Except if I remember correctly didnt the shooter steal the weapon from his mother? If that is the case and my memory is correct, what difference does it make how they marketed it if he didnt purchase it but stole it?

And there it is.

He murdered her to get it.

[WuWei]

@komobu

Should the family of the woman killed in Charlottesville be able to sue Chrysler because James Fields was driving a Dodge?

Yes. Because they marketed that vehicle as reliable.

[WuWei]

A judge already threw out this case once.

[WildRose]

Horse hockey. None of the cited ads encourage Bushmaster owners to do even something irresponsible or illegal with them much less encourage owners to use the to commit crimes.

The shortsightedness from the cheering section is staggering.

Kid plays violent video games and commits a crime similar to those being committed in their favorite games? Hit the manufacturer for billions.

Kid listens to violent rap glorifying the sexual assault of women and commits such a crime or even just abuse of a female partner? Hit the producers, lyricists, and “artist” for billions.

Kid likes play Fast and Furious type games decides to steal a car, goes on a high speed rampage resulting in multiple deaths and injuries? No problem, again hit the actors, writers, directors, company doing the ad campaigns, hit them all for billions.

We should most certainly all be celebrating… .

[Sknyluv]

@WuWei

@Sknyluv

There’s opportunity here

“Opportunity”? To what?

To place restrictions on firearms.

[WildRose]

How is that exactly?

The fact the military chose the platform speaks to it’s accuracy and reliability, it doesnt’ encourage buyers to commit crimes with them much less mass shootings.

[WuWei]

@Sknyluv

@WuWei

@Sknyluv

There’s opportunity here

“Opportunity”? To what?

To place restrictions on firearms.

This is a 1st Amendment issue, not 2nd. You have no idea what’s going on here.

Restrictions on firearms by putting American companies, in this case the oldest one, out of business?