• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smith & Wesson Sued Over Link To July 4 Parade Mass Shooting

mrjurrs said:
Lawnmowers are legal too. If they are made or marketed in a way that injures people, they are subject to court cases.
Click to expand...

Lawnmowers are made in a way that they can be misused so that people are injured. One probably won't have much luck suing a lawnmower company because he stuck his girlfriend's head under a running lawnmower. But he might be arrested for murder, when he fails to blame the lawnmower.
 
The bottom line, Most of what people are arguing isn't part of this case.

It's not based on faulty weapons.

It's based on marketing and advertising.

The Sandy Hook people already sued Remington and won.

We will have to wait to see the outcome.

Anyone who makes statements about the outcome before it happens, is only voicing what they want to happen.

I hope that the plaintiffs win and bankrupts the defendant to the point that they go out of business and never reopens another weapons manufacturing company again.

Just because that's what I hope will happen doesn't mean it will.

People need to have patience and wait for the process to play out.
 
Cope said:
They could, but that would be illegal, and a misuse of the firearm.
Click to expand...
So, the purpose of a gun is to propel a projectile towards an intended target but you can use it for its purpose and it would be considered misuse?
 
JMB802 said:
So, the purpose of a gun is to propel a projectile towards an intended target but you can use it as intended and it would be considered misuse?
Click to expand...
Murder being illegal =/= guns are illegal.

The moment you engage in murder, your use of a firearm BECAME misuse.
 
mrjurrs said:
Lawnmowers are legal too. If they are made or marketed in a way that injures people, they are subject to court cases.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if it malfunctions. But if someone uses a lawnmower to run over babies, not so much.
 
mrjurrs said:
No, the guns injure people when they are used as designed, kind of like cigarettes.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Is it the companies fault their product, despite this known issue, is legal in the US?
 
KevinKohler said:
Murder being illegal =/= guns are illegal.

The moment you engage in murder, your use of a firearm BECAME misuse.
Click to expand...
I thought the purpose of a firearm was to propel a projectile towards an intended target.

So, you can use the gun for its intended purpose but it could also be considered misuse? hmm.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
You do not need a semiautomatic weapon with a large detachable magazine, a high velocity round, a muzzle brake, bayonet lug, barrel shroud, pistol grip, collapsible stock, etc et al to hunt game or shoot targets.

Those features make it into a machine to SLAUGHTER lots of people quickly. Thats exactly what the intent is.

That these are sold over the counter like cold medicine is nothing short of an abomination IMO. We're going to have to turn our brains on someday when it comes to the gun issue.

WHY NOT TODAY?
Click to expand...
Again with the lies.
Can you explain how a barrel shroud, pistol grip, muzzle brake, and a bayonet lug turn a gun into machine to slaughter lots of people.

And you realize the round fired from most ARs is one of the weaker rifle rounds out there right?

Do you ever get tired of being so wrong.
 
JMB802 said:
I thought the purpose of a firearm was to propel a projectile towards an intended target.

So, you can use the gun for its intended purpose but it could also be considered misuse? hmm.
Click to expand...
Killing =/= murder.
 
JMB802 said:
So, the purpose of a gun is to propel a projectile towards an intended target but you can use it for its purpose and it would be considered misuse?
Click to expand...

Silliness.

The purpose of a baseball bat is to swing hard at an object, and multiply the force of the swing through leverage to gain greater striking force. If the object you swing at is somebody's head, you're misusing it.
 
Liberal7360 said:
You don't know what Pepsi did to gain more market saturation?
Click to expand...
I don't care what they did to gain market saturation. It doesn't matter to the question of whether RemArms is the same company as Remington Arms, LLC. It is not the same. This is because Remington Arms, LLC filed for bankruptcy and was liquidated. The trademark "Remington Arms" was considered an asset and was purchased by another company. Just the name. In the same way Pan Am went out of business in 1991 yet an investment firm bought the name and launched a completely new Pan Am in 1996 (and again in 1998), the companies shar only a name. They do not share liabilities or decision-making authority over the lawsuits filed against the company before that was also named Remington.

Liberal7360 said:
You are arguing something that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I'm arguing that a company filed for bankruptcy and was liquidated. This is ridiculous? I'm arguing the company that bought the name isn't the company that was liquidated. This is ridiculous? I'm arguing the company that now bears the name Remington and manufactures firearms did not settle a lawsuit against the previous company that was named Remington and manufactured firearms because they can't because they aren't the same company. This is ridiculous?
 
RF667799 said:
Silliness.

The purpose of a baseball bat is to swing hard at an object, and multiply the force of the swing through leverage to gain greater striking force. If the object you swing at is somebody's head, you're misusing it.
Click to expand...
What's untrue about what I said?
 
JMB802 said:
I thought the purpose of a firearm was to propel a projectile towards an intended target.

So, you can use the gun for its intended purpose but it could also be considered misuse? hmm.
Click to expand...

If you drive a car down the road, you're using it for it's intended purpose. If in the course of doing that, you are also deliberately running people over, I think a good case for misuse can be made.
 
braindrain said:
Can you explain how a barrel shroud, pistol grip, muzzle brake, and a bayonet lug turn a gun into machine to slaughter lots of people.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can.
But I'm not going to waste my time on the willfully ignorant, theres no point.:geek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom