Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay

Bit of a bump…

Gun firm Remington pays Sandy Hook school shooting families $73m

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3...5c8b17891a3062

The families of five children and four adults, some of those killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, have reached a $73 million settlement with Remington, the bankrupt gun manufacturer that made the assault rifle used. It is the first time a gunmaker has been held responsible in a mass shooting.

Yesterday’s announcement by lawyers for the families came after a seven-year legal battle with Remington Arms, maker of the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle used to kill 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut. The attack by Adam Lanza, 20, who killed himself as police arrived, was the deadliest primary school shooting in US history. The children he killed were six and seven years old.

The families of nine of the victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remington and its insurers in 2014, alleging that the gunmaker should be held partially responsible for the shooting because its marketing strategy extolled the Bushmaster’s image as a combat weapon.

Things may change now - gun companies may lose money now they may forced to control who they sell their guns to, and will be under pressure from their insurers.

It could only happen in America.

Its completely ridiculous, how on earth are they responsible for the actions of lunatic.

(and how does a bankrupt company pay anything ?)

It’s the lack of sensible gun control that’s the real issue in the US.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

It could only happen in America.

Its completely ridiculous, how on earth are they responsible for the actions of lunatic.

(and how does a bankrupt company pay anything ?)

Simple cause and effect: if you market and sell assault-style rifles to a consumer market for "home defence", you must be accept the consequences of your decision.

U.S. Supreme Court declines to shield gun maker from Sandy Hook lawsuit

The plaintiffs have argued that Remington bears some of the blame for the Sandy Hook tragedy. They said the Bushmaster AR-15 gun that Lanza used - a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16 - had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings.

The plaintiffs said that Connecticut’s consumer protection law forbids advertising that promotes violent, criminal behavior and yet even though these rifles have become the “weapon of choice for mass shooters” Remington’s ads “continued to exploit the fantasy of an all-conquering lone gunman.” One of them, they noted, stated, “Forces of opposition, bow down.”

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Simple cause and effect: if you market and sell assault-style rifles to a consumer market for "home defence", you must be accept the consequences of your decision.

U.S. Supreme Court declines to shield gun maker from Sandy Hook lawsuit

Based on that logic, surely it's a joint liability between the manufacturer of the weapon and the manufacturer of the ammunition. One is pretty much useless without the other.

Unless of course you're either a) going to club your target with the butt of an assault rifle or b) going to stand and throw small calibre rounds at targets?

Should the retailer be held accountable for the sale?

Should Ford be held accountable because someone drove one of their vehicles into a crowd in Wisconsin killing people?


Personally, I'm absolutely against the sale of weapons of this nature. However, since the sale of the device is legal. then it comes down to misuse by the individual.

Originally Posted by Maggy

It’s the lack of sensible gun control that’s the real issue in the US.

And it’s not going to change, as long as the 2nd Amendment exists in its current form. Changing it or removing it, requires substantial ratification from 75% of State to State legislatures, even if both houses of Congress super approve a new amendment.

You would think, after the assassination of 4 of their presidents, several mass shootings, the worst of which this thread is attributed to, they would do something, anything.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Mick

And it’s not going to change, as long as the 2nd Amendment exists in its current form. Changing it or removing it, requires substantial ratification from 75% of State to State legislatures, even if both houses of Congress super approve a new amendment.

You would think, after the assassination of 4 of their presidents, several mass shootings, the worst of which this thread is attributed to, they would do something, anything.

Sums it up nicely

Guns are now ingrained far too deeply into American culture, remove them from general sale and watch the crime figures rise.

It's also big business isn't it, stop selling weapons to the public and they'd put a lot of people out of work

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Based on that logic, surely it's a joint liability between the manufacturer of the weapon and the manufacturer of the ammunition. One is pretty much useless without the other.

Unless of course you're either a) going to club your target with the butt of an assault rifle or b) going to stand and throw small calibre rounds at targets?

Should the retailer be held accountable for the sale?

On the first point, I guess you are right although I do not know if AR-15 ammo is also usable in other firearms

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Should Ford be held accountable because someone drove one of their vehicles into a crowd in Wisconsin killing people?

The argument is specious, Ford vehicles are designed, marketed and sold to transport people and not to deliberately kill them.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Based on that logic, surely it's a joint liability between the manufacturer of the weapon and the manufacturer of the ammunition. One is pretty much useless without the other.

<snip>


Should the retailer be held accountable for the sale?

But ammo is sometimes shared between weapons so unless the ammo is unique to that firearm how is there a responsibility.


Yes the retailer does have some accountability. Too easy to get these and too easy to bypass the checks even if applied.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Based on that logic, surely it's a joint liability between the manufacturer of the weapon and the manufacturer of the ammunition. One is pretty much useless without the other.

The issue is the marketing, not the ability of the weapon to kill people.

"had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings."

Presumably the ammo supplier hadn't done this.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

The issue is the marketing, not the ability of the weapon to kill people.

"had been illegally marketed by the company to civilians as a combat weapon for waging war and killing human beings."

Presumably the ammo supplier hadn't done this.

The issue is marketing *and* the ability of the weapon to kill people. There no justification in a civil society to market a military grade semi-automatic rifle for sale to civilians.

[Carth]

All weapons have the ability to kill people . . . hell, many household items can do it too.

Originally Posted by Carth

All weapons have the ability to kill people . . . hell, many household items can do it too.

Be fairly impressive to see someone kill 61 people and wound over 400 others with a rolling pin in 10 minutes…

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Carth

All weapons have the ability to kill people . . . hell, many household items can do it too.

You're not going to bludgeon 60 people to death with a George Foreman grill in full view of the public, you wouldn't stab 60 either before you were stopped.

I don't know why we are even discussing this or why it's even news, they're happy with the situation and feel burying those children at Sandy Hook iand else where is a price worth paying, well let them get on with it then.

[Carth]

grow up both of you, no need for petty crap like that