Especially in the last 15 years or so. Every event where a weapon of this sort was used, has been politicized to the nines by the usual suspects. Unless, it’s Chicago. The weapon there doesn’t matter, or the number of dead. Media and politicians go mute.
I don't think any sane person wants one, but a lot of folks don't mind on taking advantage of a tragic event to further their agenda.
And the builder of his house, after all it allowed unsafe gun storage. Shoddy construction. And any politician that voted for funding on the school as it provided an unsafe location.
Even though the shooter there is not right wing. He was a greenie and hated conservatives in his 76 pages of crazy
Yeah I just saw that. He is a confusing one. Anti immigration, nationalist, but greenie and hates conservatives. Weird.
Yet an Australian. Wonder why it is he had to leave his country to perform a hideous, hateful act on citizens of a different country, all the with the intention of removing rights from those in yet another country.
WOW, what? Look it up... many "notable" folks have used the words.. and Man made tragedy as an excuse for fodder.
I'm sure the Director of Marketing had a white paper on vertical sales position for adult purchasers unwilling to properly secure their firearms, permitting disaffected douchewhistles prohibited from possessing the weapons access to the weapon for purposes of perpetrating a mass shooting at a public school. Probably have six or seven revisions to see the evolution of the strategy, as well. Remington is fucked!
I don't see it being so much a money grab for thet families. More just the litigeous mentality of that region. Sandy Hook is not in a generally poor region of CT. More likely a money grab for attorneys. Just my opinion though.
"The Sandy Hook families had focused on a portion of their argument against Remington on “negligent entrustment,” essentially saying that the company sold guns to civilians knowing they are dangerous outside of certain institutions like the military. But the state Supreme Court said that this angle of the case is not feasible legally." It's going back to the state SC now. This lawsuit will fail. I think the defendants have a strong case, especially since the killer had to kill his own mother to get access to the rifle. They are suing based on marketing practices around that rifle. The killer didn't even buy the gun, how could marketing have influenced his buying decision?
The problem that got tobacco screwed is they marketed smokes as safe and to kids. Guns have never been marketed as something that didn't kill and marketing guns to kids is okay within reason. Not remotely the same product so they're not going to get anything out of it either way.