This is a nuisance lawsuit that legally should have been barred by the PLCAA, except the "scummy lawyers" for the plaintiff made up a bullshit story that they can prove Remington deliberately marketed their guns to attract the shooter. (Doubly ridiculous as the shooter didn't buy the gun, but stole it fr his mom)
Firearm makers are the only business that a court would even consider holding responsible for the criminal misuse of their product, as the concept is laughable and it's only allowed at all because people like you think gun makers are evil.
I support Remington making it as painful and costly as possible for these plaintiffs, as that was their only reason for bringing suit against Remington.
This is a nuisance lawsuit that legally should have been barred by the PLCAA, except the "scummy lawyers" for the plaintiff made up a bullshit story that they can prove Remington deliberately marketed their guns to attract the shooter. (Doubly ridiculous as the shooter didn't buy the gun, but stole it fr his mom)
Firearm makers are the only business that a court would even consider holding responsible for the criminal misuse of their product, as the concept is laughable and it's only allowed at all because people like you think gun makers are evil.
I support Remington making it as painful and costly as possible for these plaintiffs, as that was their only reason for bringing suit against Remington.
I don't think the suit has any real merit, I can understand though why the parents would be upset.
I also know lawyers for huge corporations are fucking dickheads.