If you really think that’s what this is about, then you’ve been duped.Why is it stupid?
It isn't stating Remington is directly culpable for the murders; just that they may have broken marketing rules laid out in state law.
Should gun manufacturers be allowed to break laws?
I did.Oh! So you didn't read the article.
Okay. But there also K.I.T.T.
No. I haven't been duped. I'm not a fool. But I try to not get sucked into imprecise argument as often as I can.If you really think that’s what this is about, then you’ve been duped.
Because there’s no way that a manufacturer of a product should be held liable for the misuse of their product.
Guns are designed to shoot people. How was one misued in this case?Because there’s no way that a manufacturer of a product should be held liable for the misuse of their product.
Are Fords designed and manufactured to kill people?If they are successful, then I have a good chance of winning a case against Ford. The manufacturers of the implement that killed my family member.
Oh wow. You’ve brought up a point I never thought of. It never occurred to me that when Remington designed their rifle they had murder of children in mind.Guns are designed to shoot people. How was one misued in this case?
You claim the gun was misused.Oh wow. You’ve brought up a point I never thought of. It never occurred to me that when Remington designed their rifle they had murder of children in mind.
They should be sued.
If you cannot make a distinction between killing and murder, then I have nothing to say that will convince you.You claim the gun was misused.
Guns are designed to kill people (not juat children per your faux histrionics).
Ergo the gun was used as designed and manufactured.
That said I think this lawsuit is just as inane a stunt as the bazillion dollar lawsuits by smirky Sandmann's famiky. Id just like to see some more substantive reason for throwing out a judge's decision than "it's stupid".
If your argument is founded on sematics then you're correct. If you have a logical argument, then I'm all ears.If you cannot make a distinction between killing and murder, then I have nothing to say that will convince you.
It’s logical that there’s a difference between murder and killing. That’s more than semantics.If your argument is founded on sematics then you're correct. If you have a logical argument, then I'm all ears.
Are Fords designed and manufactured to kill people?
No. I haven't been duped. I'm not a fool. But I try to not get sucked into imprecise argument as often as I can.
My understanding:
1) They believe Remington advertised a product to a market they were not allowed to.
Let's say they even get found guilty of this.
How could they then have legal grounds to connect the shooter himself to the company? They were bought legally by mom.
Sure they will bring it to court to TRY it, but I simply don't believe it would win. I'm not even convinced they'll win the first leg of the race.
So it's the absence of the disclaimer "don't try this at home" kind of thing?Not really. The opinion explicitly tells the reader the plaintiff's allegations. The plaintiff made two allegations. The first allegation in the complaint, according to the court, is:
"The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently
entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle."
In other words, it is alleged the statute was violated on the basis of claiming the defendants manufactured and sold to the wider public "an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by the military and law enforcement."
The plaintiff's second theory of liability was related to alleging a marketing violation.
The plaintiffs’ second theory of liability was that the defendants marketed the rifle, through advertising and product catalogs, in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the
rifle as a combat weapon that is intended to be used for the purposes of waging war and killing human beings. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants advertised this rifle differently from how they would promote and sell rifles intended for legal civilian purposes such as hunting and
recreation.
Something like that. Whether it turns out to be legal or not, some people find it disturbing that a gun company is specifically targeting their marketing of pretend army guns to the minuteman wannabe segment of the gun-owning population.So it's the absence of the disclaimer "don't try this at home" kind of thing?
The new sports car is shown speeding down a highway and sliding sideways through the wet road curves but that's not how the manufacturer would promote it to be driven by a teenager. So they're careful to add the "closed course, stunt driver..." language in the video as a disclaimer.
Remington is playing both sides of the marketing/legal debate - playing up the gun's militaristic attributes in the advertising but then claiming it's not really for that when someone uses it in that capacity.
Or at least that's the claim?
It’s logical that there’s a difference between murder and killing. That’s more than semantics.
Is killing always murder?Odd, the last time I checked murder involved the killing of someone