Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

On what grounds are they going to sue Remington?

Asked by Dutchess_III (42273points) November 12th, 2019

The Supreme Court cleared the way for the families of Sandy Hook to sue Remington.

And what are your thoughts on it?

I hope it’s a move toward some real gun reform in this country.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

36 Answers

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

They can sue but I don’t think it’ll go anywhere. It’s not like Remington was advertising directly to would be mass shooters. The AR-15 gets a bad rap because of the media, it could have very well been a handgun, shotgun or several other styles of firearms. Virginia Tech it was handguns so where is the door for those families to sue? This is a cheap and dangerous move. Real gun reform needs to be in the licensing and vetting space as well as enforcing existing laws.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

There is this little bit of info as well. Handguns would be the obvious choice of mass shooters for many reasons. I think AR-15 gets used so much because they are specifically described by the media and they are ubiquitous these days.

Coolhandluke's avatar

If your question, although hilarious, causes me to get into a bad mood and I punch someone, can I then sue you for putting me in the bad mood?

No? Crazy?

Same stupid thing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

My question is hilarious? What is so funny about it?

Coolhandluke's avatar

You made it seem like you support such a frivolous lawsuit. That would be the hilarious part. If not, by all means I would apologize to you.

Care to reflect on me, your view on the lawsuit?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m not against it, necessarily, if it could do some good, but I don’t understand what they could possibly sure the gun maker for.

Coolhandluke's avatar

That’s the point. Remington nor any other gun manufacturer isn’t at fault. Look at the Ford Mustang. They advertise commercials about the power and speed. Can they be sued for a kid speeding and killing someone? Nope. Because it’s dumb.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, this should be interesting.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I fail to see where Remington marketed to mass shooters. Perhaps the supreme court could also include the makers of Call of Duty, or the movie studio that released Rambo. What about the ammunition makers… I have lost some respect for the Supreme court over this.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, that’s what the lawsuit is all about, so I guess we’ll find out.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I think its ridiculous. Its taking the anger for mass shootings and projecting onto all gun owners and manufacturers.

Sagacious's avatar

The supreme court declined to hear the appeal. All that really did was take this one instance, Sandy Hook, and say to them…....go ahead and pursue your lawsuits in Connecticut state court if you like. The plaintiffs are saying Remington marketed AR15 improperly according to a state law. There is a federal law that protects gun makers from such suits, absent offense to other certain federal and state laws.

I personally think it’s ridiculous to sue a gun maker for the act of someone who bought a gun, absent defective design or manufacturing defect in the gun used in the incident. Not just guns, but any product.

ragingloli's avatar

How much responsibility does a meth cook have for someone else’s meth addiction?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Loli’s point is significant. Laws may be passed legalizing machine guns OR abortion. Such laws will always be vulnerable to challenge and resistance.

josie's avatar

They can sue if they want. But they won’t win.
It would be like suing Ford for making the SUV that drove into a crowd and killed people.
I appreciate their grief.
But seriously.
Something has happened in our time that people cannot deal with disappointment.
Disappointment is real, so denying it is sort of illogical, so I don’t get it.
Oh well.

zenvelo's avatar

The Ford Mustang and the Ford Explorer are not designed to be efficient means of driving into crowds or rolling over. The AR15 is designed to be efficient at killing people.

The meth cook is held responsible if caught, especially for poorly made meth.

Manufacturers are often found liable for the use of their products, it is well established law.

If there are grounds for finding Remington liable, then maybe their insurance underwriters will get them to change their behavior.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

A FB friend just commented “To avoid liability due to defective design, Remington will have to state that the gun did what it was supposed to do – kill people.”

kritiper's avatar

It’s total BS. After all, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” “Gun reform” is meaningless if you can’t control the root of the problem, which is people.
Guns are not designed to kill people. Guns are designed to fire projectiles. The designers of the guns mean for the gun operators to kill people.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Reality dictates that Remington be sued simply because the company is the undisputed choke point in the manufacture and distribution of the M-15. The corporation is also the player with the resources to yield substantial financial compensation for damages which guarantees that any laws enacted shielding the company from liability will be vigorously poked and prodded for “creative” vulnerabilities.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why is it that things that work in every other civilized country on the planet, don’t seem to “work” here?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Remington is not the only manufacturer of the AR-15, here are some others:
Delton
DPMS
Olympic
Rock River Arms (RRA)
Stag
Anderson
Aero Precision
FNH
Palmetto State Armory (PSA)
Ruger
Sig Sauer
Smith & Wesson
Bravo Company (BCM)
Colt
Daniel Defense (DD)
Larue
Lewis Machine & Tool (LMT)
LWRC
Noveske
Rainier Arms
Yankee Hill Machine

It’s a platform that is not exclusive to any single manufacturer. It is silly to signal out Remington, they are no “choke point.”

Dutchess_lll's avatar

This is prompting me to research. From Wiki: “As of September 19, 2019, Colt Firearms has announced it is discontinuing production of the AR-15. The reasons given for taking the rifle out of production were low demand for Colt-made ARs and excessive production capacity for the rifle across the firearms industry.[57]”

I’ll try to remember to do more on my desk top.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

This does not even scratch the surface of the industry. There are numerous parts and accessory manufacturers as well, waaay too many to list.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I am glad I asked this question.

Sagacious's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Don’t lose respect of the court over this. The court did not make a ruling and made no statement other than they were not going to hear the appeal. Remington is the only manufacturer mentioned in the suit because they manufactured the gun that was used. Lawsuits can’t bring in parties who are not, well, parties to the case.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

How do they know Remington was the manufacturer of the gun that Land a used.

ragingloli's avatar

Because every weapon produced by legitimate manufacturers have markings and serial numbers stamped on them.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Land used a Bushmaster variety which is manufactured by a company that was bought by Remington.
It’s still crazy to sue them directly. The firearm could have easily been made by one of the others.

jca2's avatar

It’s not saying they’re going to win a suit. It’s just saying they can sue.

Dutchess_III's avatar

This is pretty interesting. They are expected to win but it’s putting them on alert. ”If the industry wakes up and understands their conduct behind closed doors is not protected, then the industry itself… will take steps to try to help the massive problem we have instead of do nothing and sit by and cash the checks,” said Joshua Koskoff, the Connecticut attorney who represents a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school on Dec. 14, 2012.”

jca2's avatar

I was listening to something on NPR in CT about it the other night. I wasn’t totally paying attention because I missed the first part of it, but they were talking about how the AR-15 is advertised and also they talked about Discovery (from the legal sense). They want discovery. So I’m not sure what it means in reference to this issue but that’s what they said is crucial in this instance, discovery.

Dutchess_III's avatar

From the link above, they’re referring to their “books.” I always thought “books” referred to finances, but they’re indicating that the “books” will uncover how they advertised them.

Sagacious's avatar

@jca2 Discovery happens in all lawsuits. It is how one side obtains information, documents, etc. from their adversary.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther