3,610
 

Mar 14 - Court rules families of Sandy Hook victims can sue gunmaker Remington for attack


 


section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter       Share this on Facebook
 

 2 weeks ago '12        #26
Ragobeer 55 heat pts55
space
space
space
$2,300 | Props total: 3967 3967
 class01 said
People with the car analogies...if the car manufacturer advertised that the car was good for running over people and then someone ran you over then yes you could sue the manufacturer.

They're saying that this gun manufacturer was advertising in that type of way. They have been granted access to Remington's internal documents on their advertising policies.
Show me a Remington advertisement where they were promoting gunning people down
+1   

 2 weeks ago '17        #27
CamburyBXGreat 4 heat pts
space
space
space
$6,206 | Props total: 16279 16279
 strungout said
Weapons like this were never meant to be sold to the general public ..

The thing on the right yes ...go catch a deer I see nothing wrong with it


[pic - click to view]



But now you got the most unstable people on earth with access to the most sophisticated weapons and it's just a recipe for disaster....

Hope these parents win just because
Who should own guns? The people in law enforcement and military are unstable as well hahah
+1   

 2 weeks ago '05        #28
tdots 
space
space
space
$705 | Props total: 1098 1098
 WhoNextWithPlex said
If somebody dies going 200 mph in a Ferrari should they sue the company for making them go fast?
Paul Walker’s daughter

 2 weeks ago '04        #29
class01 
space
space
space
$456 | Props total: 186 186
 Ragobeer said
Show me a Remington advertisement where they were promoting gunning people down
They were advertising like the weapon is for military use and not for personal protection/hunting

 2 weeks ago '04        #30
class01 
space
space
space
$456 | Props total: 186 186
 Ragobeer said
Show me a Remington advertisement where they were promoting gunning people down
And obviously if a court has ruled in their favor they must have more evidence that Remington has some liability. Idk why you dudes want to sit in forums arguing over these things.

 2 weeks ago '06        #31
daffysm 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$14,810 | Props total: 2881 2881
 ItAlY2BkLyN said
That's what I'm saying? Someone dies in a drunk driving accident, the victims going to sue Ford? Budweiser?

What about when that kid got hacked to death in NYC with machetes? Those manufacturers can get sued too?

Suing for marketing practices is one thing. Wrongful death is another thing.
my only thought on that is, a car's main purpose is to travel

a rifle's main purpose is to shoot something/someone



weird ruling though
+2   

 2 weeks ago '12        #32
Ragobeer 55 heat pts55
space
space
space
$2,300 | Props total: 3967 3967
 class01 said
And obviously if a court has ruled in their favor they must have more evidence that Remington has some liability. Idk why you dudes want to sit in forums arguing over these things.
Yet you still haven't answered the question. You wanna comment on something you know nothing about.

 2 weeks ago '04        #33
class01 
space
space
space
$456 | Props total: 186 186
 Ragobeer said
Yet you still haven't answered the question. You wanna comment on something you know nothing about.
Turn on the TV. Their lawyer was on MSNBC quoting the advertisements

 2 weeks ago '10        #34
Frasier 245 heat pts245
space
avatar space
space
$18,765 | Props total: 9756 9756
I'm suing Boxden for lowering my IQ so much having to read stupid fu*king posts daily.
-2   

 2 weeks ago '05        #35
P-Hill|M 28 heat pts28
space
avatar space
space
$39,460 | Props total: 16711 16711
I'm not a gun owner but this is bad
+1   

 2 weeks ago '07        #36
Eddie..|M 13 heat pts13
space
space
space
$18,643 | Props total: 2407 2407
 strungout said
i agree

but i still think you can even protect yourself....with something with a lot less ammunition.
maybe 100 years ago but this is 2019 fool aint no telling how many bullets you gonna need.,
+2   

 2 weeks ago '11        #37
tonio25 6 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$6,456 | Props total: 10399 10399
 strungout said
Weapons like this were never meant to be sold to the general public ..

The thing on the right yes ...go catch a deer I see nothing wrong with it


[pic - click to view]



But now you got the most unstable people on earth with access to the most sophisticated weapons and it's just a recipe for disaster....

Hope these parents win just because
General public cant buy weapons like that so try again snowflake
+1   

 2 weeks ago '04        #38
class01 
space
space
space
$456 | Props total: 186 186
Gun owners : I need these guns for protection. I need these guns in case I have to f*ght against the govt.

Reality : I need these guns because it's fun to go to the gun range and shoot targets

 2 weeks ago '12        #39
Di Warlord 9 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$12,774 | Props total: 16647 16647
It’s gonna be interesting to see what comes of this.

I always ask myself why the people that own guns to f*ght against an oppressive American government think this way.. especially when the same US government has submarines, tanks, planes that can break the speed of sound, satellites, nukes, conventional bombs that are more powerful that most of the nukes, allies with the same (or similar) technology, etc.

Does that mean that you’re willing to shoot at and k*ll US troops? Why aren’t you on a no-fly list, at the very least? The Taliban k*lls US troops for less, IJS

The Taliban also doesn’t only use semi-automatic weapons in their f*ght against even the sh*tty Afghan army, a puppet of the United States. It’s also important to note that most of the firearms in America are close-range weapons

 1 week ago '04        #40
ItAlY2BkLyN 240 heat pts240
space
avatar space
space
$25,227 | Props total: 16841 16841
 daffysm said
my only thought on that is, a car's main purpose is to travel

a rifle's main purpose is to shoot something/someone



weird ruling though
I feel you. But then we could look at knives. Knives purpose is to cut things. If someone uses to cut a person, is the knife manufacture liable? Just sticky situation all around.
+3   

 1 week ago '17        #41
Ymmot 13 heat pts13
space
space
space
$10,656 | Props total: 25386 25386
 Frasier said
I'm suing Boxden for lowering my IQ so much having to read stupid fu*king posts daily.
No one is forcing you to read articles, no one is even forcing you to be on BX.
+2   

 1 week ago '17        #42
Ymmot 13 heat pts13
space
space
space
$10,656 | Props total: 25386 25386
 ItAlY2BkLyN said
That's what I'm saying? Someone dies in a drunk driving accident, the victims going to sue Ford? Budweiser?

What about when that kid got hacked to death in NYC with machetes? Those manufacturers can get sued too?

Suing for marketing practices is one thing. Wrongful death is another thing.
I kinda get where you coming from, but your logic is a little flawed. It would be more like if a certain car company advertised their car was safe for drunk drivers to operate and a drunk driver, driving that car, hit and k*lled someone. Then the parents could sue that car maker. I'm not saying this ruling is totally justified, but I understand it seeing as no one actually needs to own an R15 for any real reason.
+1   

 1 week ago '04        #43
ItAlY2BkLyN 240 heat pts240
space
avatar space
space
$25,227 | Props total: 16841 16841
 Ymmot said
I kinda get where you coming from, but your logic is a little flawed. It would be more like if a certain car company advertised their car was safe for drunk drivers to operate and a drunk driver, driving that car, hit and k*lled someone. Then the parents could sue that car maker. I'm not saying this ruling is totally justified, but I understand it seeing as no one actually needs to own an R15 for any real reason.
Yea the car example was apples and oranges. But knives are more similar. Machete's are a tool for cutting things. Kid got hacked to death with one. But I struggle to still hold the manufacturer liable.

And the whole thing is that a good hunting rifle like a 30-06 is more powerful, more accurate and more deadly than an AR. People are outraged over ARs but willfully will let a more deadly weapon go unnoticed.

Also a person with two of these, can shoot more rounds faster than they could with an AR

[pic - click to view]



So AR's are not the problem. Sure I agree, 100rd drums, grenade launchers, silencers, full auto's, etc. should all be classified under a federal firearms license (FFL). Which they mostly are for any legal purchases. Which goes back to the argument that banning ARs will effectively do nothing to make us safer. I do support removing the 2a rights of people who are documented mentally ill though. But that gets tricky because what's stopping people form classifying citizens as mentally ill if they make a depressed FB post after they break up with their GF or something?

We need to treat the cause of the issues. Not the symptoms.


Last edited by ItAlY2BkLyN; 03-18-2019 at 10:17 AM..
+2   

 1 week ago '17        #44
Ymmot 13 heat pts13
space
space
space
$10,656 | Props total: 25386 25386
 ItAlY2BkLyN said
Yea the car example was apples and oranges. But knives are more similar. Machete's are a tool for cutting things. Kid got hacked to death with one. But I struggle to still hold the manufacturer liable.

And the whole thing is that a good hunting rifle like a 30-06 is more powerful, more accurate and more deadly than an AR. People are outraged over ARs but willfully will let a more deadly weapon go unnoticed.

Also a person with two of these, can shoot more rounds faster than they could with an AR

[pic - click to view]



So AR's are not the problem. Sure I agree, 100rd drums, grenade launchers, silencers, full auto's, etc. should all be classified under a federal firearms license (FFL). Which they mostly are for any legal purchases. Which goes back to the argument that banning ARs will effectively do nothing to make us safer.
Yeah, I feel you. I think it goes back to the fact that a lot of mass shooters choose AR's for their attacks.

 1 week ago '17        #45
Ymmot 13 heat pts13
space
space
space
$10,656 | Props total: 25386 25386
 ItAlY2BkLyN said
We need to treat the cause of the issues. Not the symptoms.
No doubt, couldn't agree more with you on that.
+1   

 1 week ago '04        #46
ItAlY2BkLyN 240 heat pts240
space
avatar space
space
$25,227 | Props total: 16841 16841
 Ymmot said
Yeah, I feel you. I think it goes back to the fact that a lot of mass shooters choose AR's for their attacks.
yea and there are definitely some of those shooters who shouldn't have had access to them. (kids under 18, mentally ill, etc. )

But that's why I think we need to address the cause, not the results. Kids who want to k*ll people will k*ll people even if ARs never existed. sh*t the kid at Arapahoe HS here in CO used a 12ga shotgun.

We need to treat a sick society, fueled by a shallow/apathetic/materialistic/emotionally unstable culture.

But that's a much harder brainstorming session to address. It's much easier to just say ban ARs to give people the feeling they're safer and steps are being taken. But will it really have any meaningful impact on gun violence
+3   

 1 week ago '06        #47
daffysm 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$14,810 | Props total: 2881 2881
 ItAlY2BkLyN said
I feel you. But then we could look at knives. Knives purpose is to cut things. If someone uses to cut a person, is the knife manufacture liable? Just sticky situation all around.
knives have so many other purposes though, guns main purpose are to k*ll

the whole dangerous instrument/deadly weapon argument
+1   

 1 week ago '04        #48
ItAlY2BkLyN 240 heat pts240
space
avatar space
space
$25,227 | Props total: 16841 16841
 daffysm said
knives have so many other purposes though, guns main purpose are to k*ll

the whole dangerous instrument/deadly weapon argument
but one could argue that guns are also a deterrent. Guns are useful even when not fired. The whole "equalizer" argument. Shooting has also been a sport for 100s of years. Aside from k*lling clay pigeons and plinking targets, a gun might never k*ll another living thing in its entire existence.

But what about archery? Is a bow and arrow's only purpose not to k*ll? I know the amount of violence caused by one or the other isn't even questionable. Just more so around the argument that it's only intent is to k*ll. But it does actually have other purposes like sport.
+1   

 1 week ago '08        #49
supervillain 254 heat pts254
space
avatar space
space
$13,509 | Props total: 988 988
 CamburyBXGreat said
Who should own guns? The people in law enforcement and military are unstable as well hahah


unstable and OUT OF CONTROL
+1   

 1 week ago '16        #50
OWPE 94 heat pts94
space
avatar space
space
$5,871 | Props total: 14626 14626
Democrats back at it with their terrible laws and ideas.

Home      
  





 


 
 




most viewed right now
+33online now  53
NBA Exposing Rachel Nichols Lying on ESPN
114 comments
22 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
+42online now  25
Image(s) inside B00ty Movement
44 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
+30online now  24
Video inside Remember when Jay z Forbode and banned Beyonce from filming with Sean P..
78 comments
1 day ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
+128online now  18
Image(s) inside #SurvivingCardiB Spreads Across Social Media, After She Admits To Drug..
377 comments
24 hours ago
@hiphop
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy