73 MILLION for mass murder of children

FredHayek wrote: You are talking about the shooting. I am talking about the court case. Remington wasn't pulling that trigger. And they aren't making that payout because they shot those teachers and students. The insurance company is handing out that big check because they want the case to end.

The settlement? It is only going to the lawyers and the families who signed onto the lawsuits. If you were a victim and didn't sign onto the lawsuit, you don't get a check.

The biggest issue as I see it is that the insurance company made the payment and set a precedent. The goal is to make insurance for gun manufacturers and sellers extremely high, if attainable at all.

Rick wrote:

FredHayek wrote: You are talking about the shooting. I am talking about the court case. Remington wasn't pulling that trigger. And they aren't making that payout because they shot those teachers and students. The insurance company is handing out that big check because they want the case to end.

The settlement? It is only going to the lawyers and the families who signed onto the lawsuits. If you were a victim and didn't sign onto the lawsuit, you don't get a check.

The biggest issue as I see it is that the insurance company made the payment and set a precedent. The goal is to make insurance for gun manufacturers and sellers extremely high, if attainable at all.

[/b]

kinda like doctors?...i see a huge amount of litigation for errors and omissions (by the way REALTORS pay for O&E)....

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote:

FredHayek wrote: You are talking about the shooting. I am talking about the court case. Remington wasn't pulling that trigger. And they aren't making that payout because they shot those teachers and students. The insurance company is handing out that big check because they want the case to end.

The settlement? It is only going to the lawyers and the families who signed onto the lawsuits. If you were a victim and didn't sign onto the lawsuit, you don't get a check.

The biggest issue as I see it is that the insurance company made the payment and set a precedent. The goal is to make insurance for gun manufacturers and sellers extremely high, if attainable at all.

[/b]

kinda like doctors?...i see a huge amount of litigation for errors and omissions (by the way REALTORS pay for O&E)....

The end result is the same but that's not a good comparison. With the gun issue, people want to put blame on the people who are making and selling the guns instead of the people who are using the guns in an illegal way.

With your malpractice insurance example, the lawsuits don't focus on the tools doctors use (scalpels, medical devices, etc.), they are directed at the individual doctors who use those tools. As with all lawsuits, some are justified and some are not but they are rarely filed against the makers or sellers of the tools, they are filed against the user who may or may not have made bad choices.

OK THEN, HERE IS AN EXCELLENT COMPARISON

www.politico.com/news/2022/02/18/newsom-...-gun-makers-00010201

U screw me over for my bodily RIGHTS, u get back the same.....GUN RIGHTS R GAME

And once again a reminder that guns in the hands of the government killed hundreds of millions more than in the hands of civilians. Even right now innocent Ukrainians are being shelled by Russian troops.

SORRY, U can not outgun the government.....IF the gov.wants to procure private citizens, using a multitude of weapons at their disposal....U R going to lose the lead. WEAPONS do not have to be fire arms....there r a
great number of ways to win victory.

www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the...21&mbid=CRMNYR012019


'' the families have won an extraordinary victory: a settlement that includes a payment of seventy-three million dollars and, perhaps more important, which will make possible the release of internal company documents. Those documents promise to lay bare the calculations that gun merchants make when they seek out customers for military-style guns. That could potentially hurt more than the money.''

FROM THE ARTICLE..."seek out customers for military style weapons''...in other words, A TARGETED MARKET for massive maximum damage.

homeagain wrote:
FROM THE ARTICLE..."seek out customers for military style weapons''...in other words, A TARGETED MARKET for massive maximum damage.

So your broad brushed assumption suggests that my buying an AR-15 is most likely because I'm planning on using it for "massive maximum damage"? I think you're completely off base and you can't back up your claim with anything other than your feelings, but I'll wait for your evidence and maybe you'll change my mind.

homeagain wrote: www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the...21&mbid=CRMNYR012019


'' the families have won an extraordinary victory: a settlement that includes a payment of seventy-three million dollars and, perhaps more important, which will make possible the release of internal company documents. Those documents promise to lay bare the calculations that gun merchants make when they seek out customers for military-style guns. That could potentially hurt more than the money.''

FROM THE ARTICLE..."seek out customers for military style weapons''...in other words, A TARGETED MARKET for massive maximum damage.

OMG....release INTERNAL DOC that show marketing focus...u r purposely being oblique.

Lets see the advertisement(s) in question and then see if those advertisements can be blamed for any individual act of gun violence. I've looked for these alleged advertisements that could possibly inspire bad people to kill with theses guns and I can't find them. Most killers have mental problems, so I doubt an advertisement would be the thing that pushed them over the edge.

If I was to seek out another "military style weapon", it wouldn't be because I wanted to take out innocent people. I'm also interested in military vehicles and would love to have one, but not because I could mount a machine gun on top and roll down the 16th Street Mall causing mayhem.

This reminds me of a lot of ads for sports cars where the driver takes it into a high speed slide smoking the tires and clearly violating the law. If a gun manufacturer made the same type of ad (a guy dressed in camo destroying something in a public place with his AR-15)... then yes, I would agree with you.

Please post one of the alleged bad advertisements and we can discuss further.