Families of Sandy Hook shooting victims can sue gun mfg. Remington
50 replies, posted
Citing a case from 40 years ago about a kid and a slingshot and an eye injury..
The crime is "illegal advertising" that debases the welfare of the people.
I thought it was already ruled they couldn't? This is retarded, this isn't any different from suing a tool company because someone shot you with a nailgun.
What does this accomplish?
Lol this is even stupider than it looks. The court argues that advertising guns is in violation of a Connecticut law that prohibits advertisements that "promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior" and therefore Remington can be sued on the basis that they advertised guns.
Supreme Court just overturned it.
It seems petty to go after remington and not the state.
Also, source on the slingshot thing:
Why Sandy Hook Families Are Citing a 1970s Slingshot Injury
well it's not like remington doesn't have the money to spare which is also something that relatives of the deceased can use to help overcome temporary discomforts while they cope
I’m sorry for the victims but this lawsuit is clearly grasping at straws here.
I'd say it's a little different, in this case the tool company is advertising an automatic nail gun that shoots x nails per second, and most carpenters would probably agree there's no point to them firing at that speed for their job.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this decision is going to help anything.
Remington is no more responsible for the shooting than Ford is for building the vehicle that he drove to the school in.
Well you already don't know what the AR-15 is, in this case it's a nail gun that shoots every time you pull the trigger, which is just a nail gun unless there are bolt-action nail guns that I don't know about.
There are bolt action nail guns and they are reviled by carpenters
I just want you to know that I'm rating the court dumb, not you.
So its okay to sue people who arent responsible for terrible things so you can get money?
From the article it looks like they're trying to bully Bushmaster into ending their line of civilian AR-15's. But if what the article says is true, their case has no grounding to begin with. It alleges that the rifle is advertised as an “offensive military style combat” for carrying out deadly missions against “perceived enemies”, which is not even close to any gun advertisement you'll find in the real world. They didn't buy that rifle from AmmuNation.
Apparently this is an example of how they're targeting troubled youth.
I remember this. This campaign was tactless and immature but I don't see how it endorses criminal behavior as the court suggests.
Isn't that just a hammer?
Firearms have no business of being in the hand of civilians.
Would you care to elaborate on this or are you going to leave it at an empty platitude and then act like a victim when you get negative ratings?
What did he mean by this.
It's a joke
i cant tell anymore
Idk m8 if the poor sods locked in that room had been packing gats they probably wouldn't have become lion food
This is one of the cringiest ads I ever saw
Beer is advertised that way too, I agree though it's cringey and stupid. Also more recently beer commercials seem to be more aimed at the party/celebration aspect with some occasional virtue signalling
So we can sue the company that built the courtroom that this case was delivered in, right?
They built the courtroom; they're responsible for what happens in it. It's common sense judicial control!
I think suing people like alex jones and other people who profit off of conspiracy theories is a better plan tbh
I'm gonna sue Chevrolet because I got rear ended by one. (Didn't happen, but this is the same thing)
According to that logic we should be able to be able to sue knife companies after stabbings, car makes after people are run down, etc
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.