Remington offers settlement in Sandyhook massacre

O

ohioboy

Well-known Member
Location
Ohio
To begin, sadly, many innocent children lost their precious lives.

To overcome federal law shielding gun manufacturers from liability, the argument was put forth by the Plaintiff's the gun was designed to be a military/assault type weapon.

In my mind, Remington is just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger. There is no rational human purpose for civilians to own them, period.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...emington-offers-33m-settle-sandy-hook-lawsuit
 

ohioboy said:
To begin, sadly, many innocent children lost their precious lives.

To overcome federal law shielding gun manufacturers from liability, the argument was put forth by the Plaintiff's the gun was designed to be a military/assault type weapon.

In my mind, Remington is just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger. There is no rational human purpose for civilians to own them, period.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...emington-offers-33m-settle-sandy-hook-lawsuit
Click to expand...
This shooter killed 33 people at a university. Neither of his guns were "Military/Assault" type weapons. Are Glock & Walther "Just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho​

Weapons used in the attack​


Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol

Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol
 
win231 said:
This shooter killed 33 people at a university. Neither of his guns were "Military/Assault" type weapons. Are Glock & Walther "Just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho​

Weapons used in the attack​


Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol

Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol
Click to expand...

Well, handguns are defensive, assault weapons are not, they are meant to kill the masses. Why do you think a normal person is not permitted to own/possess dangerous Ordnance?
 

ohioboy said:
To begin, sadly, many innocent children lost their precious lives.

To overcome federal law shielding gun manufacturers from liability, the argument was put forth by the Plaintiff's the gun was designed to be a military/assault type weapon.

In my mind, Remington is just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger. There is no rational human purpose for civilians to own them, period.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...emington-offers-33m-settle-sandy-hook-lawsuit
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if it's legal to manufacture and sell a product to the public, the manufacturer shouldn't be held liable if the product is not used for its intended purpose, although in this case, the intended purpose is to kill quickly and efficiently, and for that reason, it should be illegal, but it's not.
 
ohioboy said:
Well, handguns are defensive, assault weapons are not, they are meant to kill the masses. Why do you think a normal person is not permitted to own/possess dangerous Ordnance?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. Any gun is defensive.
If assault weapons are meant to "Kill The Masses," why do police officers have assault rifles in every vehicle? To kill the masses?
You are criticizing one type of weapon based on its appearance and the number of rounds it holds. Any gun can "kill the masses" as the shooter did at Virginia Tech - who killed more victims than the shooter at Sandy Hook - with handguns.
Since you choose to blame the manufacturer of a product instead of the criminal, why not blame all products that can be used to kill?
If by "Dangerous Ordnance," you are referring to military explosives, that is irrelevant. Rifles are not military explosives.
 
ohioboy said:
To begin, sadly, many innocent children lost their precious lives.

To overcome federal law shielding gun manufacturers from liability, the argument was put forth by the Plaintiff's the gun was designed to be a military/assault type weapon.

In my mind, Remington is just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger. There is no rational human purpose for civilians to own them, period.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...emington-offers-33m-settle-sandy-hook-lawsuit
Click to expand...


blame.jpg
 
We have had this argument several times since I joined here. I think gun ownership is a right and is so stated in the Constitution. We need to start blaming the real reason why people are killed by use of a gun.
 
How will this affect the law, in the future?

Other gun makers will accuse them of undermining their business.

Mike.
 
Last edited:
Irwin said:
It seems to me that if it's legal to manufacture and sell a product to the public, the manufacturer shouldn't be held liable if the product is not used for its intended purpose, although in this case, the intended purpose is to kill quickly and efficiently, and for that reason, it should be illegal, but it's not.
Click to expand...
Right, the intended purpose is not for defense, it is for mass slaughter. Cigarette manufactures should not be liable then for the deaths of people, yet they were held accountable in the multi-billion settlement years ago. If you choose to smoke don't blame the cigarette companies if you get any disease.

Is that a fair comparison?
 
ohioboy said:
Right, the intended purpose is not for defense, it is for mass slaughter. Cigarette manufactures should not be liable then for the deaths of people, yet they were held accountable in the multi-billion settlement years ago. If you choose to smoke don't blame the cigarette companies if you get any disease.

Is that a fair comparison?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is. Cigarette companies knew the dangers but suppressed the evidence and lied about it for years, even promoting cigarettes as being good for your health.
 
Pepper said:
I don't think it is. Cigarette companies knew the dangers but suppressed the evidence and lied about it for years, even promoting cigarettes as being good for your health.
Click to expand...
You can't suppress the dangers of a Carcinogen, even the Surgeon General said in the 1960's that cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health. That is why cigarette TV advertising was banned decades ago. The public knew they were dangerous, I knew of very few smokers that said they were not harmful.
 
Pepper said:
I don't think it is. Cigarette companies knew the dangers but suppressed the evidence and lied about it for years, even promoting cigarettes as being good for your health.
Click to expand...
With the help of DOCTORS who were paid to say cigarettes were beneficial.
 
ohioboy said:
Right, the intended purpose is not for defense, it is for mass slaughter. Cigarette manufactures should not be liable then for the deaths of people, yet they were held accountable in the multi-billion settlement years ago. If you choose to smoke don't blame the cigarette companies if you get any disease.

Is that a fair comparison?
Click to expand...
When you post based on emotion & misinformation, instead of facts:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/
 
An "Assault Rifle" is what I will have in my hands if I need to defend myself or my loved ones.
If I don't have time to get to it, a handgun will help me get to my assault rifle.
I deserve (and will have) all the edge I can get, since I'm not a criminal. Rats run in packs. A 10-shot handgun may not be enough.
Like these homeowners:

 
I'm fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment, but I question the rationale behind allowing the purchase of military style weapons whose sole purpose is killing people, in large numbers, quickly. At a minimum, IMO, anyone interested in buying such a weapon should be required to undergo very extensive background checks similar to buying a fully automatic weapon.
 
Don M. said:
I'm fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment, but I question the rationale behind allowing the purchase of military style weapons whose sole purpose is killing people, in large numbers, quickly. At a minimum, IMO, anyone interested in buying such a weapon should be required to undergo very extensive background checks similar to buying a fully automatic weapon.
Click to expand...
I don't care. I've undergone an extensive background check each time I purchased a firearm - required in my state and fingerprints and a 10-day wait. And a written exam.
And, (as in the examples above), I'm glad such weapons kill so efficiently. As a law-abiding citizen, I deserve all the edge I can get in a terrifying situation as a home invasion with multiple thugs. And a pathetic justice system with repeat, paroled felons.
As I said, sometimes, rats & cockroaches run in packs. The more ammo my gun holds, the better my chances of survival.
 
Who gets your guns when you die? The folks who find your body @win231 ?
I'm being serious.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top