- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 126,716
- Likes
- 147,317
- Points
- 115
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remington should have paid more
But, Good
Why?
Because a gun they made was used to kill little children
Glad those families got some measure of closure with this.
I'm just glad those families got paid for the shit they had to endure
product placement in violent video games.
This one is tough... without forcing his parents to get him the help he needs I'm not sure what else the system could have done.I don't know why we as a society equate money to closure.
If someone killed my daughter I don't think any amount of money in the world could make me feel whole again. The kid who committed the crime is dead. The system that allowed his mental illness to go unchecked is still in full swing.
I don't know why we as a society equate money to closure.
If someone killed my daughter I don't think any amount of money in the world could make me feel whole again. The kid who committed the crime is dead. The system that allowed his mental illness to go unchecked is still in full swing.
I never said they would feel whole again or that money could make them whole. That's why I said some measure of closure, and not closure alone. They will never get their children back, but having the manufacture of the gun that killed them, now has had to pay. That's a start.
I expect them to fight until they are no longer on this Earth to try and stop other school shootings from happening, for better gun control, etc.
I guess I will never understand why we seem to blame the gun and not the person who committed the crime. It seems like such a massive case of illogical behavior.
My wife's sister was murdered years ago. A stalker kidnapped her and shot her in the back on I-5 after she crashed the car and tried to run. He then went across the freeway and shot himself in the head. This guy had multiple restraining orders from other women. He legally wasn't allowed to have a gun. Her family doesn't blame the gun. They blame the horrible human being that stole their sister away from them.
There is plenty of blame to go around
This is the answer, right here.I guess. People are angry and they want someone to blame. I just don't agree with it. Focus your energy on changing the system.
I don't know why we as a society equate money to closure.
If someone killed my daughter I don't think any amount of money in the world could make me feel whole again. The kid who committed the crime is dead. The system that allowed his mental illness to go unchecked is still in full swing.
I guess. People are angry and they want someone to blame. I just don't agree with it. Focus your energy on changing the system.
Yeah, advertising to the extreme gun nut culture is just asking for it...I've thought about this a lot also because I agree if it were my family money would not replace them.
The system is broke but I feel like this addresses your previous comment. Sueing the company responsible (or partly responsible) currently is the only way to change the system. Corporations only care about money and hitting them in their bottom line is the only thing that will make them take responsible actions in the future. So in essence the lawsuit is not about making their family whole, for the families involved they are focusing on fixing the system the only way realistically available. Now we can argue on whether not not the gun manufacturers are responsible but that's not my point, but since the settled they must feel like they have some legal liability.
Knives have a practical use but handguns and assault style rifles have no practical use and neither do large magazines have a practical use. Shotguns that are not sawed off and bolt action hunting rifles have a practical use. The only practical use for a handgun would be in the woods for shooting varmints.We have already established that gun makers can't be sued. This was purely about marketing (which is a hallow veil to go after them for making the guns.)
Guns exist. We allow them to be made. Would you allow a knife maker to be sued if their knife was used in a mass casualty event?
Knives have a practical use but handguns and assault style rifles have no practical use and neither do large magazines have a practical use. Shotguns that are not sawed off and bolt action hunting rifles have a practical use. The only practical use for a handgun would be in the woods for shooting varmints.
Do you really believe that there should be personalized targeted marketing to teenagers?
“45K People Died from Gun Violence on Your Watch”: Parkland Survivors Demand More Action from Biden.
This is simply insane.
Yes, but I don't know of any that can't be used in hunting big game off hand, maybe a switch blade.Just as you said about guns, there are knives that are designed for only one real purpose. They aren't designed for cooking or crafting. Should those knives be held to the same standard when they are used to inflict violence?
They truly qualify as a well armed and trained militia.Boy....... we could really sue the hell out of the Army then.... or really the Marines.