In America it is now legal to sue the gun manufacturer if you get shot:
The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker and promoter of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.
Other urls found in this thread:
washingtonpost.com
twitter.com
So every product that is used to hurt another person is now the manufacturers fault? Remington should start funding lawyers to help people bring lawsuits against car, knife, tool, & bat manufactures to bring focus to the Pandora's box that has just been opened with this precedent
So this thread took off
So now I can sue Ford for a drunk crashing into me, right?
They only allowed it to proceed
How are you this butthurt over the Supreme Court letting top lawyers argue ?
Sure, they can sue Remington. They can sue McDonalds, the can sue milk, they can sue who and whatever they want. The Supreme Court knows that Remington would never lose a case like that. It's like suing a salad fork maker for someone being stabbed with a salad fork.
You always could if you had a legal ground
Supreme Court is literally just telling both sides they can bring it up
If the cops shoot someone can i still sue the company?
This is how it has always been dumb ass every car toy and food manufacture faces liability why wouldn't an arms manufacture. Plus this means that everyone that is harmed or killed by a gun from here on out is owed money from an arms manufacturer. Good bye guns. Good Bye 2nd Amendment. Good bye freedom.
This. If the fork exploded for no reason the salad fork maker could also be sued. Being sued doesn't mean either group of people automatically won. People are awful at understanding law
Would you hold GM liable if a terrorist drive a truck through a crowd of people? No
This will be an interesting development.
No but GM doesn't design and sell trucks specifically intended to kill people oh wait......
Yes. For example: If the company did something incorrect, like making a beanbag rifle fire twice as powerful, and that caused it to shoot into a nonrioting section of a city and kill a kid outside of it's tended perimeter range, yes they could be sued. Because the company fucked up specifications and the police sure as hell have good lawyers/would blame the lethal product sold as a non-lethal one to get pressure off their ass. Doesn't mean the suing party wins/even gets pass the initial judge
Say that again but slowly. The impression you give is that you think it should be the counter-factual case, that it should be ILLEGAL to sue a gun manufacturer if one of their guns has been misused. Why should it be illegal? This is about being able to bring the action, it doesn't say anything about what the result should be once tested. The ruling means that a lawsuit can not be blocked on the grounds that Remington was trying to use.
For anything to come of it for real, a plaintiff still has to prove that Remington should have recognised culpability.
cars, knives, tools, and bats serve a purpose other than being designed purely to kill.
Guns aren't specifically made to kill people either brainlet
The guns predominantly sold to the civilian market are intended to kill yes but mainly in hunting and lawful self defense. No gun manufacture has ever sold a weapon on the pretense it is to be used for anything but that. Form them to held liable they would have to perpetuate a sales strategy that targeted mentally ill individuals and or a direct relation to an individual involved in a shooting.
just because it shoots bullets doesnt mean its designed to kill. ive owned a gun for 10 years and never killed a thing. range shooting and competitive shooting is an entire industry on its own
Many are. Military and self-defense firearms are made exactly for that purpose.
cars have a basic use for daily mobility, but what if a teenager buys a bmw, modifies it and gives it more power (or even just keeps it stock), street races it and kills himself/someone else. bmw should not be responsible for any deaths caused by someone piloting their vehicle
are they marketed as such? I own an ak-47 and have never used it with intent to kill.
a constitutionally protected purpose.
Hate to sound like a tree hugging hippie but in actuality if everyone could sue the piss out of multi billion corps. who have profited of the death of countless billions of people and in the process doing that bring about a better life style through the liquidation of suck corps to it citizens on global scale wouldn't that bring about a mutual world peace?
Dont be stupid. They are designed, advertised, and sold as a weapon.
Cars and kitchen knives arent. And they cover their ass by not advertising cars for running people over and knife makers sell them for hunting or cooking, not killing people.
Agreed, and it does it's job well. I'm not passing judgement here, just stating a fact that this shill likes to deny.
We're not talking about what (You) use it for, you can use it as a dildo if you like, or hand it as art. But it was designed for warfare and killing humans. Just a fact, it doesn't change anything in your argument.
please show me an ad for ANY weapon where they say "you can kill people with this"
>So every product that is used to hurt another person is now the manufacturers fault?
No just the ones that are promoted as great killing machines that you should keep around your teenagers.
You can sue who ever you like. Doesn't me you will win.
its designed specifically killing humans? How on earth could they get away with designing, marketing, and selling something designed to kill other people. thats just stupid.
So because a military weapon designed and manufactured to kill people but is not marketed as such means that it is not designed and manufactured to kill people? I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying here user before I call you a moron.
Do you understand what the world "military" means? Do you understand the concept of "soldiers" and what they do? Have you heard of the word "war"?
This
no this is a completely foreign concept to me. please explain
This is the issue its 2019 why do we continue to support the idea of letting a corporation in Germany profit off of Americans killing brown people and the likewise world wide. Who is profiting of the death and misery of the people they should be punished.
See, user. I've got more guns than you and I'd put money on that. I only wonder why you have to lie?
>guns aren't made to kill people hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
It's retarded. Stop.
They will lose. If they win, then we can sue anyone for everything as previous discussed.
Car drives over 100? Sue them.
Candy bar had 10oz not 7 oz? Sue them
Not how it works lib fag. Should car manufacturers be sued by accident victims. If the other person is driving drunk, should alcohol companies be sued?
>I've got more guns than you
So now parents will sue and lose...
So nothing has changed.
Europoor here.
Does this mean I can sue Hillary Clinton for damages sustained to migrants after she manufactured a regime change in Libya?
This triggers the liberal.
She is fucking disgusting
yes. but you won't get very far.
The people that have the most guns are the least proficient with them in my experience. I was a LEO instructor for 7 years.
Guys that train with 3 weapons are much more effective than guys that have a safe full of guns and never train with any of them to proficiency.
Congrats. You're useless.
>In America it is now legal to sue the gun manufacturer if you get shot
You are fucking retarded does not mean its legal anyone can sue for anything. They will not win the case. This is just families throwing money at lawyers even tho the lawyers know they well not win.
Insert insurance companies and bureaucracy. Thousands of people die each year due to unsafe cars its takes about 8 years to finalize recalls and pay restitution to victims. So to answer your question yes and they are every day.
No it would not. That idea that somehow if we were to miraculously vanish away all the firearms in the world we would be safer is pretty much a hippie dream my tree hugging friend. Also companies that produce civilian firearms are responsible for such small numbers of fatalities it's kind of absurd. I guarantee you that high fructose corn syrup has killed more people than civilian owned ar 15s.
You would be surprised if Libya brought her to justice she would stand trial there.
It's designed to efficient laumch a projectile. The owner is solely responsible for where the projectile(s) go. People just want ro lynch people over everything nowadays.
The rifles functioned as advertised. The items themselves weren't unsafe. The users used them in an unsafe manner.
False equivalence much?
You mistake my take fren I never said vanish guns I never said confiscate or take away I said hold manufactures that profit off of death and suffering responsible when they pay restitution and their company go bust then you make your own gun and when you kill someone with it you will be brought to justice just the same.
cool, let's sue YouTube and Hollywood for assaulting a generation with Marxist shit.
I hate edm festival people
ahha agree
a car manufacturer is not liable for vehicular murder when there are no defects to a road legal vehicle.
Ford is not liable for an F250 used in a ram raid.
That's incorrect, the decision has nothing to do with being able to sue a manufacturer over being shot/killed by one of their products.
Remington is being sued for allegedly running ad's that violated CT state laws.
also
the unsafe design cause for suit only applies if the item is not inherently unsafe
builds sporting firearms designed for 3 gun competition...gets somehow misconstrued as designed to kill people.
That's why they make then all tactical looking and shit.
Ever wonder why guns in the Olympics and comp shooting dont like it should be strapped to the back of a soldier?
>Forces of opposition, bow down
That's remingtons fucking slogan.
Of course they are that's why all cars crumple like beer cans now and are garbage the second you pull them off the lot.
Still disagree with you my dude. You say they profit off of death which statically is such a small number. Going off of the FBI databases on firearm fatalities in th US There are on average a few hundred long gun(shotgun rifle) fatalities a year with a good amount of those being suicides. So this death and destruction you speak is relatively small compared to say the deaths caused by...fast food , alcohol , cigarettes, drunk driving, obesity, on the job construction accidents, boating accidents, prescription drug overdoses. This perceived destruction of firearms is amped up by the 24 hour news cycle but I really like your gif so we can agree to disagree my man
no, they are like that to protect people from accidents, the manufacturer is not liable for motorists speeding.
people are suprised by this? all donald trump has did is attack gun rights every chance he gets since he's been in office.now your bible thumpin judges are joining in
Ar 15s are designed to kill people, not for sport events.
Sorry.
But Sandy Hook didn’t even really happen so..?
you are conflating dangerously unsafe vehicles with vehicles that criminals use for illegal deeds.
please show yourself out for either being retarded or wilfully ignorant.
500,000
An estimated 500,000 Iraqi and Iranian soldiers died, in addition to a smaller number of civilians. The end of the war resulted in neither reparations nor border changes.
War exists because its big business and while everyone sets idly by and lets it happen it continues billions are made and you they little guy spend the rest of your life paying for it. WAKE UP
I see, so is it currently illegal to kill people in the US? as in there is no circumstance in which a legal killing can occur ?
I’d laugh at your impending “suicide”
Guns are designed to protect and hunt. Aka kill things you stupid bastard.
Eugene stoner was designing a firearm for 3 gun? Not for killing people?
Eugene stoner was surely thinking about hunting, not killing people more efficiently. Gotcha.
it is legal to kill under certain circumstances in the US.
cope
There are tons of circumstances in which it is legal to use lethal force in the US. People die from gunshots all the time and people dont serve prison time.
Are you stupid?
that's my point , it is legal to kill in the US given certain circumstances, Gun manufacturers did nothing wrong
My coping level is just fine, thank you.
I didn't say they did.
how fat are you?
then we are bickering over nothing.
My BMI is exactly middle of the range.
You can sue for anything doesnt mean it will hold up.
Sup Forums strikes again. I hate this place.
that doesn't change the fact that they still are intended to kill, as you said.
if range shooting and competitive shooting is an industry on its own why not use less lethal weapons such as air rifles or paintball guns?
that would be considered gross recklessness on the driver's part. i wouldn't expect to see bmw implicated in such an affair. however, guns are designed to kill. it's not a misuse of the gun when it's fired with intent to kill. in self defense and justifiable cases i'm all for guns. but in the case of unprovoked mass shootings, i see it as gross negligence on the part of the manufacturer/retailer
Manufacturers aren't responsible for what people do with their products. Every single alcohol producing company would be out of business if that were the case. Every. Single. One. Of them.
fuck off authoritarian gun grabber.
BMW should be held liable because they're a shit car company that needs to be shut down. How can a company that gave us the terrific E24, E28, E30, E34 and E39 make such stupid shit nowadays?
Also, yearly fee for Apple Car Play and Radar Cruise control is an additional option? This shit comes standard on a Civic or Corolla here.
ban hardware stores, they sell tools and supplies that one can use to build devices of terror.
And McDonald's coffee isn't designed to burn someone's skin.
You're right every single one of us is responsible for letting them.
>Beat someone to death with pic related
>Watch the poor fuckers in Venezuela get sued
who the fuck cares
someone hacks your bank account on a apple computer sue apple lol
Nobody
What else is new
Just because they can sue doesn't mean they can win.
>Depends on the court.
Lol dude guns and anything like them were invented for killing people. Then some were then streamlined for hunting afterwards.
