Comments by "" (@beeforeal5497) on "Remington Subpoenas Sandy Hook Victims' School Records" video.

  1. Are the families of stabbing victims going to start suing knife companies too?
    2
  2.  @gattaca5911  - Oh, so the guns they manufactured were illegal to manufacture?
    1
  3.  @gattaca5911  - What gun horsepower law did they break?
    1
  4.  @gattaca5911  - When did semi/full automatic capacity law go into effect?
    1
  5.  @gattaca5911  - It's not illegal 'til it's illegal, is it?
    1
  6.  @gattaca5911  - If something becomes illegal then it's illegal at that point and not before that point. Getting something to become illegal isn't the same as making it illegal when it was legal.
    1
  7.  @gattaca5911  - You're talking about products that are recklessly dangerous on their own. People don't use cigarettes the wrong way or ATV's the wrong way and then something bad happens as a result of that. They are recklessly dangerous the way they were intended to be used. People have used knives and cars and baseball bats to kill others but yet they're not banned. The guns in question aren't the same scenario as the products you're talking about. Nobody at Remington advertised their guns as a means to kill children or even innocent adults so how are any of Remington's products recklessly dangerous if used how they are intended to be used? It's not the products, it's the people who use them. If you go after the products that aren't recklessly dangerous on their own but could be by the people who use them then most products could be banned for some reason or another, couldn't they?
    1
  8.  @gattaca5911  - You're proving my point. The ATV was a design flaw. Did they advertise it as something you can't make sharp turns or go up steep hills on?
    1
  9.  @gattaca5911  - You don't know what design flaw means? It makes all the difference in the world. Who buys an ATV with the expectation of not going up steep hills or making sharp turns? Who buys a gun with the expectation that it wouldn't kill? You're examples aren't relevant.
    1
  10.  @gattaca5911  - What did the gun in question do or not do that was or wasn't intended by the user?
    1
  11.  @gattaca5911  - I cannot find a legal limit on horsepower in cars. Are you just making stuff up now?
    1
  12.  @gattaca5911  - You're grasping for straws. Even if horsepower was limited because of lawsuits, which I'm not seeing that it is, if people are driving their cars too fast (regardless of how much horsepower it has) it isn't the car company that will receive a citation from a police officer, it's the person who drives the car too fast who will face the consequences of their actions.
    1
  13.  @gattaca5911  - You're ATV argument is irrelevant. I aske again, What did the gun in question do or not do that was or wasn't intended by the user?
    1
  14.  @gattaca5911  - My original post was meant as an emphasis question on how ridiculous it is to blame a maker of legal products to be sued because the user themselves are using it illegally. What is the name of the lawsuit that got a certain amount of horsepower in cars illegalized? I'll be waiting for your answer. Your constant trying to tie Remington to the same scenario as ATV's is not relevant because the ATV's weren't designed to do what the user intended to do with them. Again, you refuse to answer my question (what did the gun in question do or not do that was or wasn't intended by the user?) because you know you can't.
    1
  15.  @gattaca5911  - The only time a maker of a legal product should be sued in some instances is when the product in question does or does not do what was or wasn't intended by the user. Alcohol kills more people than guns. Are we going back to prohibition? Why aren't people suing alcohol companies? Is that next?
    1