Sandy Hook Families' Lawsuit Against Remington Arms

      Three days ago, the Supreme Court denied Remington Arms bid to be able to block a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hooks families. This means the Supreme Court refused to listen to the arguments or appeals Remington Arms had and allowed Sandy Hook families to have a court day to try and get justice. The families say, “Remington should be held liable, as the maker and promoter of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.” I disagree with this because the company did not make the shooter do this. It’s like trying to sue an alcoholic company for someone drunk driving and killing someone. You can’t do it because the company did not encourage or make him do it. In the end its his decision to do it not the companies. In 2005 the United States passed an act called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This act states that it “protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.” This means its not the companies fault if something happens.

To read more click here

 

Do you think the families should be able to sue Remington Arms?

I don't they should be able to because didn't encourage or make him do it.

Do you think AR (ArmaLite rifles) style rifles should be banned?

I don't because if someone is shooting at me with one. I want one of my own to use and defend myself with.

You need to be a member of History 360 to add comments!

Join History 360

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies

  • Well done Kemper! Good story choice! I do think your personal thoughts are a bit brief in your summary. Stay away from yes/no questions as well.

  • No because they are just the producers noy the actual distributers and they cant control who gets the guns because that is up to the gun store. No because their are plenty of reasons people have them and it is strange but I still dont think trhey should be banned.

  • No, I don't think they should be able to sue Remington. A gun does not kill people a person does. A spoon does not make you fat, you do. It was a choice that the individual made. I also don't think they should be banned because if a person was going to shoot someone are they really going to listen to gun laws? The answer is obviously not. 

  • I do not think the family should be able to sue Remington. Of course, this event is obviously terrible, but it's not as if Remington specifically promoted massacres, while they develop it, the US allows Semi-Automatic weapons to be in the US. I think ARs should have a limited capacity and greater restrictions, in the case of war, the US citizens having weapons of their own makes the US even stronger than its army, but ARs don't need 20 round magazines, they should be limited.

  • They defenitely shouldn't be able to sue a company producing a product. If this gets far in court its for other reasons Im assuming. I don't think they should be banned because they are not what the media and the people put them out to be. These shootings are stupid people with guns hurting other people not the rifle doing it itself. 

    • Excalty, the court even passed an act that said they can't be held accountable. Now they are going against their own word. I feel like the media only picks up the shoots where rifles are involved because in the hood there are shootings everyday and they don't get as much attention as there others do.

  • I do not think that they should be able to sue because all the company is trying to do is making money, and it isn't illegal. They are just doing what the company is making money from and like you said they did not encourage the person. I really don't care it does not affect me greatly.

    • Yup, the company only promoted it to try and get the guns sold and help put their product out there and spread the name. They didn't have a big sign and say use this to shoot up schools. the company and the rifles itself did nothing to hurt these people. It was the shooter, and he even shot his own mom in the head 4 times before the shooting.

  • I think that if Remington Arms heavily promoted these weapons then they should be aloud to sue, I don't think that in any sitution they would win the lawsuit, but I still think the should be able to sue. I think that these rifles should be banned because countries that have done so have lower gun violence.

    • I disagree, even Remington Arms promotes them they jsut try getting the word out to help them sell and use them for hunting or recreational use. Not to go shoot up a shoot. Also, studies have shown robberies and deaths have occured more in gun free zones. Also, countries that have guns ban have more robberies, stabbings, and getting beat up then places that allow concealed or open carry.

This reply was deleted.
eXTReMe Tracker