Why Sandy Hook parents are suing a gunmaker

[AUUSN 823]

It's always been a big uphill battle for plaintiffs to sue the gun industry," said Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton. "It was even before the immunity (legislation), and it's an even bigger one now."

One exception to the immunity legislation is what's called "negligent entrustment."

"Say a gun retailer handed a gun to a visibly intoxicated person, then they're not subject to the immunity," said Lytton, who studies gun industry litigation.

You might ask: Since Remington did not come into direct contact with the shooter -- that happened at a gun retailer -- how would that apply? The lawsuit argues that the way in which the company sells and markets a military-style weapon to the civilian market is a form of negligent entrustment.

"Remington took a weapon that was made to the specs of the U.S. military for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers in combat -- and that weapon in the military is cared for with tremendous amount of diligence, in terms of training, storage, who gets the weapon, and who can use it," Koskoff, the attorney for the families, said. "They took that same weapon and started peddling it to the civilian market for the purposes of making a lot of money."

http://www.cnn.com/2...es-gun-lawsuit/

[Mikey 16,781]

They are suing because some lawyer told them they might get a bunch of money. They have no chance in court, but Remington may pay a settlement to just make it go away and if they do the lawyer will get enough to finance another vacation to Europe.

[AUUSN 823]

They are suing because some lawyer told them they might get a bunch of money. They have no chance in court, but Remington may pay a settlement to just make it go away and if they do the lawyer will get enough to finance another vacation to Europe.

I know right? Seeing a picture of their child with eight bullets in their body had nothing to do with it... :-\

[AURaptor 1,137]

Empty lawsuit.

[AUUSN 823]

[AURaptor 1,137]

Guns aren't the issue, it's the ones using them, who broke the laws , that is the issue.

If a child is run over by a mad man behind a wheel of a SUV, does the parent get to sue the company which made the SUV ?

[AUUSN 823]

So then you have no problem with open carry hand grenades.

[AURaptor 1,137]

So then you have no problem with open carry hand grenades.

Not germane to the topic of the OP.

[AUUSN 823]

So then you have no problem with open carry hand grenades.

Not germane to the topic of the OP.

How about open carry RPG launcher?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

[AUUSN 823]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

How about open carry stinger missile launchers?

No?

That would be negligent entrustment, wouldnt it?

Totally germane to the OP.

[Mikey 16,781]

So then you have no problem with open carry hand grenades.

You were asked if a car company should be sued if a madman ran over a child. Dodging the question by bringing up hand grenades, which are a totally different subject, is part of your normal game. Now it's time for you to post an irrelevant cartoon. Go ahead, there is plenty of space below.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The car company selling a car really isn't analogous to a gun dealer selling weapons of war to the public

Maybe if the car company was selling tanks lol.

[homersapien 11,812]

They are suing because some lawyer told them they might get a bunch of money. They have no chance in court, but Remington may pay a settlement to just make it go away and if they do the lawyer will get enough to finance another vacation to Europe.

On the other hand, it's likely the money means squat to them.

They have a rational case.

[homersapien 11,812]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

Your shotgun statement is without merit.

[alexava 6,974]

They are suing because some lawyer told them they might get a bunch of money. They have no chance in court, but Remington may pay a settlement to just make it go away and if they do the lawyer will get enough to finance another vacation to Europe.

On the other hand, it's likely the money means squat to them.

They have a rational case.

i don't think it is about money to the parents. To the lawyers it surely is. I am not sure they have a rational case. The gun was produced legally and performed perfectly. The problem is elsewhere. I do agree there is a problem.

[homersapien 11,812]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

Is that supposed to be a response to my post? If so, you'll have to explain it.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Shotgun statement without merit? Bring it up with Joe Biden then. Ha ha ha.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Homer- , it was a reply to your statement, and the entire thread. It should be self-explanatory, if you're reading along.

[alexava 6,974]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

Your shotgun statement is without merit.

maybe he should consult with the military. They are woefully unaware that they are using the wrong equipment.

[homersapien 11,812]

Homer- , it was a reply to your statement, and the entire thread. It should be self-explanatory, if you're reading along.

What is the connection to my post?

Why aren't RPG's allowed to be possessed and carried by the citizenry? It's constitutional isn't it?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Shotgun statement without merit? Bring it up with Joe Biden then. Ha ha ha.

Okay then. Well you're just as wrong as he is. Joke is still on you.

[homersapien 11,812]

Is there a civilian class of RPG ? See, when pressed, you revert to the absurd, or silly cartoons, or lame photo shopped pics...

We're done here.

The constitution doesn't specify the type of weapon, it says "arms". One can make a valid constitutional argument that RPG's are included.

And you were done here a long time ago.

There are no " safe " guns. A shot gun ( Joe Bidens fav ) would do more damage , faster, than an AR 15.

This lawsuit is without merit .

And so are you.

Your shotgun statement is without merit.

maybe he should consult with the military. They are woefully unaware that they are using the wrong equipment.

Hah, that's what I was going to say.

If you want to defend yourself and your home, a shotgun is the way to go. But if you want to go out and attack a lot of people you take an assault rifle.