What a joke. What does this lawyer mean by “the company’s reckless marketing” ?? Remington is not marketing to psychopaths to encourage them to murder people.
I suppose they could also be suing Ford Motor for “reckless marketing” of their F-150 if it had been used to intentionally run over and murder the same victims instead of using the AR-15. Guns don’t kill innocent people…Evil people kill innocent people with whatever weapon they can find, be it guns, knives, vehicles, bombs, bare hands, etc.
This is in the same vein as those pushing to sue vaping companies for marketing to kids because their products contain flavors that “appeals to kids” and their advertisements included attractive people.
I was a little disappointed when the SCOTUS didn’t pick up the Sandy Hook case and take the opportunity to set a precedent.
Do we sue vehicle manufacturers for making vehicles that can go above 70 mph? Or every time a drunk gets behind the steering wheel and crashes?
Hunting rifles are not designed to kill humans. But they do sometimes, just like cars sometimes kill people.
Where did all your libertarian pot-fan thinking go? You want people to be “free” to consume THC when clearly many people will end up hurting other people as a result. Their kids. People dead in car accidents. Teenagers. Permanent mental illness. Damage to the unborn. Etc. Whatever, you say. “Personal Responsibility”. Too bad for the victims.
But when it comes to guns, OH NO, not personal responsibility! It’s the GUNS fault.
December 16, 2019 at 9:43 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
People can own guns. I’m fine with it. I’m just saying they are manufactured to kill. Unlike cars. And nowhere in my previous statement did I say kill people.
Once again, Craig is shoving words in my mouth. No thanks, Craig. I can speak for myself. I don’t toe a party line like some others out here.
December 16, 2019 at 9:50 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
9
I wrote, “…of killing things.”
Craig wrote in response to my comment, “Hunting rifles are not designed to kill humans. But they do sometimes, just like cars sometimes kill people.”
This is your brain on Fox News. Any questions?
December 16, 2019 at 10:41 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
“this is your brain on FoxNews… any questions?”
Questions:
Did you intend to imply here that Craig doesn’t think based on facts or substantiated opinions he reads / hears?
Or, are you implying FoxNews is in the business of brainwashing, intentionally or accidentally, their audience?
If the answer to the last question is yes, intentionally or accidentally, does the same accusation apply to CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, LAT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, … ?
December 16, 2019 at 10:46 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
6
7
FYI: “HUNTING” rifles are intended for hunting animals. Assault rifles used by military units are intended to harm or kill ENEMY COMBATANTS.
Hunting of humans is called assault, attempted manslaughter, attempted murder, manslaughter, and murder…. all of which are illegal, and punishable by law in all US jurisdictions.
Using assault rifles to harm or kill ENEMY COMBATANTS is not manslaughter or murder, and is not punishable by any US jurisdiction.
December 16, 2019 at 2:05 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
9
Answer: No, I intended to imply Craig gets his marching orders from Sean Hannity.
December 13, 2019 at 2:17 pm
Bob Burke says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
Here is a solution to stopping gun violence. Pass a law that if a gun is used in the commission of a crime, the used is subject to the “Death Penalty”. Problem solved and gun violence will end.
Yes, hang them on the courthouse steps so everyone can witness it no more than a month after their crime was committed. It will cut down on crime faster than most think.
Ah, yes. Personal responsibility is so old fashioned. The Left has figured out that if we coddle people who commit crimes, they won’t commit any more crimes. As if. Speaking of delusional.
Nope. That is not what BB wrote. Straw Man arguments are easy to discredit.
I disagree that the Death Penalty should apply to any crime committed behind gunpoint. There must be restrictions to the circumstances. The mental capacity of the individual must be considered by a panel of experts, not merely a judge or jury.
Most of these mass murderers are taking their own lives or going out in a flood of bullets. Pretty sure anyone who kills another person doesn’t care if they die or not. Not exactly a moral person who takes the life of another. Your solution would fail.
I love when your side tries to claim this as a mental health issue, despite the fact that your side is responsible for the mental health crisis in this country. Your side created this problem, whether it’s guns or mental health at fault. Why should we let your side have a say in fixing in when you can’t even admit to being behind the cause of the issue?
Jon,
You are also missing the fact we are the only nation in the world with mentally ill people. Other nations don’t have them, otherwise they’d have a similar problem with gun violence.
But as usual when you bring up a valid point, the right-wing peanut gallery will go silent. They don’t have the data on their side, they don’t have logic on their side or fact, but they will continue arguing their nonsense elsewhere despite being shut down right here.
December 18, 2019 at 6:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
For something like this, citation needed, methodology required, and context needed. What is the data that is supposedly on your side?
I cannot believe someone here just said no other nations have mentally ill people and you agreed.
This is bluntly not true, it’s an over exaggeration if anything, and isn’t backed by numbers (literally, you posted none). I’m on WHO now, I know you guys haven’t looked this up. How do I know? No one has the numbers and no one has reported on it. This one is actually hard to find. Some have went over depression, depression is not likely behind gun violence. Moreover, you implied that mental illness doesn’t exist over there, so we can’t count depression right? Since it’s roughly equal here to there.
Care to post your facts so I don’t have to go through it one by one? This is too much time. The WHO report is huge, and putting countries side by side for psychosis, vs depression, vs other factors takes a long time. I know you haven’t done it.
December 18, 2019 at 6:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
By the way Rosenblatt, this, this is me interested in making debate on a topic, rather than wanting to watch two people debate and telling them they need to focus, like I told you here:
I once told Jon that I was interested on what he said on foreign nation’s mental health, and how one might tackle it at all, this is because I am against over jailing etc. I’m a liberal basically being attacked all day by nonsense. And for you Jon, you call me the most extreme conservative, yes…One who wants to do away with a huge portion of our jailing. Huge. Yet another liberal aspect of me. This is so infuriating.
December 19, 2019 at 8:21 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
So you want to debate an OBVIOUSLY sarcastic remark but refuse to debate when YOU LIE about what a law actually does. Interesting thought process you got going over there buddy.
December 13, 2019 at 10:13 pm
Barnum says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
0
If there is no allegation that the purchaser, i.e., the killer’s mother, was exposed to Remington’s marketing, what is there to prove at trial? Whatever discovery the plaintiffs can get from Remington cannot change that fact. Remington should move to dismiss on that ground.
Also, the Supreme Court has held that truthful advertising is protected by the First Amendment. There is no allegation that Remington’s ads were fraudulent. The only winners from this silly case are Remington’s lawyers.
What a joke. What does this lawyer mean by “the company’s reckless marketing” ?? Remington is not marketing to psychopaths to encourage them to murder people.
I suppose they could also be suing Ford Motor for “reckless marketing” of their F-150 if it had been used to intentionally run over and murder the same victims instead of using the AR-15. Guns don’t kill innocent people…Evil people kill innocent people with whatever weapon they can find, be it guns, knives, vehicles, bombs, bare hands, etc.
This is in the same vein as those pushing to sue vaping companies for marketing to kids because their products contain flavors that “appeals to kids” and their advertisements included attractive people.
I was a little disappointed when the SCOTUS didn’t pick up the Sandy Hook case and take the opportunity to set a precedent.
Do we sue vehicle manufacturers for making vehicles that can go above 70 mph? Or every time a drunk gets behind the steering wheel and crashes?
If a vehicle manufacturer didn’t use a speed governor and allowed the car to go in excess of 150MPH, pretty sure they’d get sued
Or, if the car was manufactured for the purpose of killing things.
Hunting rifles are not designed to kill humans. But they do sometimes, just like cars sometimes kill people.
Where did all your libertarian pot-fan thinking go? You want people to be “free” to consume THC when clearly many people will end up hurting other people as a result. Their kids. People dead in car accidents. Teenagers. Permanent mental illness. Damage to the unborn. Etc. Whatever, you say. “Personal Responsibility”. Too bad for the victims.
But when it comes to guns, OH NO, not personal responsibility! It’s the GUNS fault.
People can own guns. I’m fine with it. I’m just saying they are manufactured to kill. Unlike cars. And nowhere in my previous statement did I say kill people.
Once again, Craig is shoving words in my mouth. No thanks, Craig. I can speak for myself. I don’t toe a party line like some others out here.
I wrote, “…of killing things.”
Craig wrote in response to my comment, “Hunting rifles are not designed to kill humans. But they do sometimes, just like cars sometimes kill people.”
This is your brain on Fox News. Any questions?
“this is your brain on FoxNews… any questions?”
Questions:
Did you intend to imply here that Craig doesn’t think based on facts or substantiated opinions he reads / hears?
Or, are you implying FoxNews is in the business of brainwashing, intentionally or accidentally, their audience?
If the answer to the last question is yes, intentionally or accidentally, does the same accusation apply to CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, LAT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, … ?
FYI: “HUNTING” rifles are intended for hunting animals. Assault rifles used by military units are intended to harm or kill ENEMY COMBATANTS.
Hunting of humans is called assault, attempted manslaughter, attempted murder, manslaughter, and murder…. all of which are illegal, and punishable by law in all US jurisdictions.
Using assault rifles to harm or kill ENEMY COMBATANTS is not manslaughter or murder, and is not punishable by any US jurisdiction.
Answer: No, I intended to imply Craig gets his marching orders from Sean Hannity.
Here is a solution to stopping gun violence. Pass a law that if a gun is used in the commission of a crime, the used is subject to the “Death Penalty”. Problem solved and gun violence will end.
Yes, hang them on the courthouse steps so everyone can witness it no more than a month after their crime was committed. It will cut down on crime faster than most think.
Ah, yes. Personal responsibility is so old fashioned. The Left has figured out that if we coddle people who commit crimes, they won’t commit any more crimes. As if. Speaking of delusional.
Nope. That is not what BB wrote. Straw Man arguments are easy to discredit.
I disagree that the Death Penalty should apply to any crime committed behind gunpoint. There must be restrictions to the circumstances. The mental capacity of the individual must be considered by a panel of experts, not merely a judge or jury.
Most of these mass murderers are taking their own lives or going out in a flood of bullets. Pretty sure anyone who kills another person doesn’t care if they die or not. Not exactly a moral person who takes the life of another. Your solution would fail.
He said the commission of a crime, not just murder.
True, he did. So, you think he meant J-walking?
While packing heat, I mean. J-walking with an unregistered gun. Send him to the chair!
I was injured by a Ford truck, when can I sue Ford Motor Company?
When? After you locate a jurisdiction where liberals believe crimes are committed by guns ( rather than gun users with mental issues).
I love when your side tries to claim this as a mental health issue, despite the fact that your side is responsible for the mental health crisis in this country. Your side created this problem, whether it’s guns or mental health at fault. Why should we let your side have a say in fixing in when you can’t even admit to being behind the cause of the issue?
Jon,
You are also missing the fact we are the only nation in the world with mentally ill people. Other nations don’t have them, otherwise they’d have a similar problem with gun violence.
But as usual when you bring up a valid point, the right-wing peanut gallery will go silent. They don’t have the data on their side, they don’t have logic on their side or fact, but they will continue arguing their nonsense elsewhere despite being shut down right here.
For something like this, citation needed, methodology required, and context needed. What is the data that is supposedly on your side?
I cannot believe someone here just said no other nations have mentally ill people and you agreed.
This is bluntly not true, it’s an over exaggeration if anything, and isn’t backed by numbers (literally, you posted none). I’m on WHO now, I know you guys haven’t looked this up. How do I know? No one has the numbers and no one has reported on it. This one is actually hard to find. Some have went over depression, depression is not likely behind gun violence. Moreover, you implied that mental illness doesn’t exist over there, so we can’t count depression right? Since it’s roughly equal here to there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/07/a-stunning-map-of-depression-rates-around-the-world/
Care to post your facts so I don’t have to go through it one by one? This is too much time. The WHO report is huge, and putting countries side by side for psychosis, vs depression, vs other factors takes a long time. I know you haven’t done it.
By the way Rosenblatt, this, this is me interested in making debate on a topic, rather than wanting to watch two people debate and telling them they need to focus, like I told you here:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/12/16/551356.htm?comments
Because if they do have numbers, I’m interested.
I once told Jon that I was interested on what he said on foreign nation’s mental health, and how one might tackle it at all, this is because I am against over jailing etc. I’m a liberal basically being attacked all day by nonsense. And for you Jon, you call me the most extreme conservative, yes…One who wants to do away with a huge portion of our jailing. Huge. Yet another liberal aspect of me. This is so infuriating.
So you want to debate an OBVIOUSLY sarcastic remark but refuse to debate when YOU LIE about what a law actually does. Interesting thought process you got going over there buddy.
If there is no allegation that the purchaser, i.e., the killer’s mother, was exposed to Remington’s marketing, what is there to prove at trial? Whatever discovery the plaintiffs can get from Remington cannot change that fact. Remington should move to dismiss on that ground.
Also, the Supreme Court has held that truthful advertising is protected by the First Amendment. There is no allegation that Remington’s ads were fraudulent. The only winners from this silly case are Remington’s lawyers.