• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Remington Responsible for Sandy Hook shooting ???

I feel like this is where we are headed....

56726513_2492316207498309_8515623497341337600_n-png-_nc_cat-103-_nc_ht-scontent-dfw5-1-png.1565179
 
I'd almost believe that except the Dems have had full control in the past yet guns seem to be the only item on the chopping block. Not that I want to see vehicle companies responsible in court for deaths. They already cost too much. Imagine how much they'd cost if courts found companies responsible for drunk driving deaths. Just that with the door opened for BS like punishing companies for making products that "could" kill people, the sky's the limit.
You mean like punishing a company because they served hot coffee?Or punishing a company because someone cut their finger on a tamper proof seal? Judges start out as lawyers,that seems to be the key link in stupity!
 
Here's the previous thread on this issue. It's quite long but the link at the top explains what issues are being litigated. I didn't search it all, but as I recall, there's a pic of the ad I spoke of.

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/th...be-sued-over-sandyhook.3974637/#post-37454190

Quote from the article.

"The regulation of advertising that threatens the public's health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states' police powers," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.

One caution: News media no longer reports news in a factual manner but instead mixes a lot of OPINION intertwined with some quotes. One has to be careful to sort out the facts, "just the facts ma'am" as Jack Webb used to say.

The fact is that the high courts have generally upheld the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, rejecting lawsuits against gun manufactures. This case is no exception as the high court rejected all elements except the advertising issue.

EDIT: My post in the linked thread (#36) references a screen grab on the evening news, so maybe someone with better searching skills than me can find that screen grab.

Ok, here's an example I found:https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12


If those are the best ads they have, they’ve got no case.
 
Yet they keep at it. Persistence is in there corner. Just a matter of time before they get another reason to try again if they fail this time.
 
If those are the best ads they have, they’ve got no case.

Perhaps to a gun enthusiast or at least gun owner and Second Amendment supporter it would seem that way. But to a non gun owner and especially a parent worried a son or daughter might die in a classroom, the whole "man card revoked" theme might seem particularly offensive and even possibly promoting gun violence.

There is a lot of discussion recently about depression and suicide in school age children, and I can't help but notice that girls tend to go off by themselves when taking their own life, while boys tend to act out aggression sometimes with firearms, or cars, taking many lives before taking their own.

Make no mistake, i see this as a mental health issue, not a gun issue, but while the remedy to the mental health issue is costly, time consuming and subject to social pressures, the passage of a restrictive law is comparatively quick, cheap and easy. And it seems many (jurors) are willing to give up an essential Liberty for the small comfort of a temporary feeling of security. (Ben Franklin)

Our job is to point out the dangers of that path, as compassionately as possible, and push for the better longterm fix that also retains our Constitutional protections. Ads like Remingtons should have been called into question immediately, especially by the NRA who's job it is to protect and promote SAFE use of firearms.

Equating "man card" and "manhood" with firearm use is IMOP patently offensive and dangerously close to promoting gun violence. Obviously some, if not many boys and men are also equating the two. And that is what I think is troubling to a lot of people on both sides of the issue.

We, as gun owners can support, without becoming fanatical, gun ownership by listening to concerns by non gun owners, and offering factual information that frames the issue by way of a more defendable argument, and without using copious pejoratives.

Good shooting!
 
I think that politicians should be held responsible for shootings in gun free zones.. This seems way more reasonable of a suit to me. They create victims by limiting their God given and constitutional rights.. They take an oath to defend the Constitution.

Ray
 
Perhaps to a gun enthusiast or at least gun owner and Second Amendment supporter it would seem that way. But to a non gun owner and especially a parent worried a son or daughter might die in a classroom, the whole "man card revoked" theme might seem particularly offensive and even possibly promoting gun violence.

There is a lot of discussion recently about depression and suicide in school age children, and I can't help but notice that girls tend to go off by themselves when taking their own life, while boys tend to act out aggression sometimes with firearms, or cars, taking many lives before taking their own.

Make no mistake, i see this as a mental health issue, not a gun issue, but while the remedy to the mental health issue is costly, time consuming and subject to social pressures, the passage of a restrictive law is comparatively quick, cheap and easy. And it seems many (jurors) are willing to give up an essential Liberty for the small comfort of a temporary feeling of security. (Ben Franklin)

Our job is to point out the dangers of that path, as compassionately as possible, and push for the better longterm fix that also retains our Constitutional protections. Ads like Remingtons should have been called into question immediately, especially by the NRA who's job it is to protect and promote SAFE use of firearms.

Equating "man card" and "manhood" with firearm use is IMOP patently offensive and dangerously close to promoting gun violence. Obviously some, if not many boys and men are also equating the two. And that is what I think is troubling to a lot of people on both sides of the issue.

We, as gun owners can support, without becoming fanatical, gun ownership by listening to concerns by non gun owners, and offering factual information that frames the issue by way of a more defensible argument, and without using copious pejoratives.

Good shooting!

Very well put, thanks.
 
If I remember correctly, the kid at Sandy Hook used a handgun. The Bushmaster was found in his trunk, but not used.

You don't. 22 hand gun on mother while she slept, Bushmaster in school, shot gun found in trunk.
This took place less than 15 miles from my home and I followed the tragedy closely for days on end.
 
Alcohol-drunk driver. No one blames the drink and attempts to ban it or limit its access. Certain kinds or styles are not limited or banned, drink what you desire but comes with what should be self implied to use responsibly.
 
Regardless if this is a money thing or a gun thing, either way, it's not Remington's responsibility and we here all know that. My opinion is that it's just another attack on guns. Strictly my opinion as I see it now and in many past scenarios. We see many commercials from tactical based companies using there products in defensive scenarios. Not that they should be responsible if a person acts out that same scene in real life but Remington never has had an add like that that I've seen. Never a commercial showing their guns defending lives or shooting people. Just ridiculous to think they should be responsible for inappropriate advertising of there guns.
 
You don't. 22 hand gun on mother while she slept, Bushmaster in school, shot gun found in trunk.
This took place less than 15 miles from my home and I followed the tragedy closely for days on end.
I watched this live and the AR was pulled out of the trunk.. He used handguns in the school. They filmed the police chasing a guy in camo into the woods and putting him in the front of a squad car.. This had a lot of stink that didn't fit the media's later BS

Ray
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,826
Messages
2,223,889
Members
79,899
Latest member
Orville. Johnson
Back
Top