Remington to pay compensation to Sandy Hook victims
- Thread starter kenbro
- Start date
UK authorised £1.4bn of arms sales to Saudi Arabia after exports resumed
Campaigners accuse ministers of ‘putting profit before Yemeni lives’ as figures revealed
www.theguardian.com
And this is what is reported...
norcan
Well-Known Member
None.
It's nice that there are aftermarket options like most other rifles, but I still can't see how Remington could possibly justify the decision to knowingly produce a defective one just to save a few cents — no matter how securely it's mounted.
OK, would you want to get shot by one?Really?
These must be weapons of mass destruction then...
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
You specifically stated chemical weapons. Any proof of that?UK authorised £1.4bn of arms sales to Saudi Arabia after exports resumed
Campaigners accuse ministers of ‘putting profit before Yemeni lives’ as figures revealed
And this is what is reported...
If you have never owned one, how can you tell it's defective?
Watched this hit piece and quote it back as truth?
Well done!
Revealed: Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after 'civil unrest' began
FURIOUS politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licences were granted to firms last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
Revealed: UK Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals
UK accused of ‘breath-taking laxity’ over export licence for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride
www.independent.co.uk
It's pretty clear that these countries lack the infrastructure and know-how to make such weapons on their own, attempting to DIY often has poor results (look at NK's nuke program).
Remember that Saddam was supported by the USA during the Iran-Iraq war and Gaddafi was in the UK's good books at one point too!
norcan
Well-Known Member
How Western companies sneakily sold chemical weapons components to Syria and Iraq
Bad actors can run rings around non-proliferation laws via "dual-use" chemicals
theweek.com
norcan
Well-Known Member
Wait, so you need to buy a Pinto to be certain that its exploding gas tank has a design defect, or have one's own Samsung phone catch fire to ascertain that it has a manufacturing fault?
kenbro
Well-Known Member
Think caberslash’s point was…they weren’t designed to kill people, much like hammers and other tools.None.
It's nice that there are aftermarket options like most other rifles, but I still can't see how Remington could possibly justify the decision to knowingly produce a defective one just to save a few cents — no matter how securely it's mounted.
OK, would you want to get shot by one?
K
Who mentioned weapons of mass destruction?
Really?
These must be weapons of mass destruction then...
All the weapons shown in the pic above are designed to fire a projectile with sufficient energy to cause the target at which they are aimed to react in some way and if the target is an animal or human being, injury or death is a distinct possibility
So yes, the primary function of any firearm is to project a missile - and that missile is capable of causing injury or death.
Cheers
Bruce
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.
I think they are “firearms“ rather than “weapons“ - they only become the latter if used in an offensive capacity, just like golf clubs and frying pans. The determining factor is what the human then in possession of same decides what to do with said firearm, golf club or frying pan.
I think this human element seems to have been played down/ignored in the Remington case with malice and money aforethought. At its most basic the firearm is an amalgamation of metal/plastic/wood parts which is inert and static until the human hand touches it - sadly that said human hand was pointing this amalgamation in the direction of other humans when disaster struck ergo no human hand = no potential for disaster.
Litigation should thus have centred on the owner of the hand that pointed the firearm in the direction of another human - contrary to all teaching and that most rare of commodities nowadays, common sense.
norcan
Well-Known Member
@Foxyboy43
Like the humans that decided it would be a good idea to market guns to kids through video games, using a campaign that told them they weren't men if they didn't buy an AR-15, something which would empower them to "end the discussion" and make others "bow down"?
I have no problem with guns, but stuff like this just makes the industry look like a bunch of absolute cretins (which Remington is in this case) and does nothing to help the cause of sporting and hunting use.
Like the humans that decided it would be a good idea to market guns to kids through video games, using a campaign that told them they weren't men if they didn't buy an AR-15, something which would empower them to "end the discussion" and make others "bow down"?
I have no problem with guns, but stuff like this just makes the industry look like a bunch of absolute cretins (which Remington is in this case) and does nothing to help the cause of sporting and hunting use.
Last edited:
I'm sure now it won't be the last!
So if a hit and run driver kills someone driving a Prius can we now sue the manufacturer?? I know it would be shameful and not many would own up to it but maybe that's there foresight to prevent suing of manufacturers!?!?!?!?!
Every time there's a mass shooting now families will be going for the big bucks
norcan
Well-Known Member
If Toyota was embedding advertising in GTA to get kids pumped about the Prius' awesome discussion-ending running-people-over capabilities and saying that they were total pussies if they didn't buy one, then... maybe?
Besides, I don't think anyone is claiming that Remington is fully culpable, but they sure left themselves open to being partially blamed because of their terrible decisions.
Besides, I don't think anyone is claiming that Remington is fully culpable, but they sure left themselves open to being partially blamed because of their terrible decisions.
MAH
Well-Known Member
When I 1st read the headline, I thought that is crazy. I felt myself agreeing with the counter argument in post #2.
I "liked" the pencil analogy in post #7.
However, having now read the details via the link in post 4, I can see how the logic seams more relevant.
Its not so much they made the gun, but how and to who the sales marking was aimed.
Here's a snippet from the link:
"After the Cerberus private equity firm bought Remington in 2007, it launched aggressive campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter videogames and by touting the AR-15 as an effective killing machine"..
I have held the view for many years, that violent video games desensitise the players to violence. For most people that's the only negative.
But for some, it goes further and gaming and reality become blurred.
The article gives the impression that Remington (Cerberus) produced the game.
If that's true, I can see the logic of the case and actually support it.
M.
I "liked" the pencil analogy in post #7.
However, having now read the details via the link in post 4, I can see how the logic seams more relevant.
Its not so much they made the gun, but how and to who the sales marking was aimed.
Here's a snippet from the link:
"After the Cerberus private equity firm bought Remington in 2007, it launched aggressive campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter videogames and by touting the AR-15 as an effective killing machine"..
I have held the view for many years, that violent video games desensitise the players to violence. For most people that's the only negative.
But for some, it goes further and gaming and reality become blurred.
The article gives the impression that Remington (Cerberus) produced the game.
If that's true, I can see the logic of the case and actually support it.
M.
alberta boy
Well-Known Member
I hope you're not suggesting that the left leaning , anti gun media would produce a program that wasn't 100% true . I've owned a lot of 700s over the years , I still own a few including one I've had since about 1980 . I've never had a problem . I've never known anyone else that has one that's had problems either . I'm sure there were some issues , but I'm a bit leery of believing much that corporate media has to say .
AB
alberta boy
Well-Known Member
I have a sneaky suspicion that this case will lead to further law suites against car manufacturers , a precedent has been set . Time will tell . Watch a high performance Motorcycle ad , they emphasise high speed , and illegal driving , hmmm , endless litigation anyone ?
AB
Sadly this is another example of our increasing litigious society...... I can see the day coming when we are faced with the following on all guns/rifles/ammunition and ammunition components.
"This item is to be used for sporting purposes only. For self defence in areas where there is a legal remit. It is not to be used for mass killings, drive by shooting, carrying out your video game into real life, getting even with your boss who has just sacked you or any other nefarious purpose. The maker of this gun/firearm/ammunition will not be held liable for incorrect usage."
The claim against Remington also shows you why General Practitioners are increasingly reluctant to sign that you are a fit and proper person to own a firearm. As someone "must be to blame" (copyright all newspapers), they are increasingly aware that it will be them that gets sued for damages if someone decides to run amok after being given the all clear by a GP irrespective of any fact.
"This item is to be used for sporting purposes only. For self defence in areas where there is a legal remit. It is not to be used for mass killings, drive by shooting, carrying out your video game into real life, getting even with your boss who has just sacked you or any other nefarious purpose. The maker of this gun/firearm/ammunition will not be held liable for incorrect usage."
The claim against Remington also shows you why General Practitioners are increasingly reluctant to sign that you are a fit and proper person to own a firearm. As someone "must be to blame" (copyright all newspapers), they are increasingly aware that it will be them that gets sued for damages if someone decides to run amok after being given the all clear by a GP irrespective of any fact.
norcan
Well-Known Member
The "litigious society" thing is a complete myth, though. Despite a few well-publicised and often-misrepresented cases, American corporations tend to have overwhelming legal advantages over those who they harm, and tort cases are a small fraction (7%) of all civil cases, and even the majority of those involve suing a private individual after an automobile collision.
Holding a US company to account in court is actually quite rare, and the vast majority of successful claims are settled for relatively small amounts.
Similar threads
