So his mom committed the crime of “ being murdered” ?
Remington Reaches Historic $33 Million Settlement With Families Of Sandy Hook Victims
- Thread starter NC Rob
- Start date
- Replies 58
- Views 1,762
No, his mother committed the crime of allowing a mentally unstable individual access to firearms. If she had not been murdered, she would have been charged as an accessory. It most likely would have come out in trial she bought the guns for her son, which woulkd have been illegal as well.
Agreed. Looking at the statistics on injuries and deaths resulting from traffic accidents, then car companies could be sued out of existence. By the same logic of no guns = no gun violence, then no cars = no car accidents.
An interesting thought. We could blame the father for not being present. We could also blame the mental health experts who didn't catch on and the makers of the violent video games that helped him descend into the dark abyss. Or the internet.
It isn't that I necessarily disagree with your opinion I just wonder how far we should take it. If a family member allows a depressed relative access to his guns is he criminally responsible if that person commits suicide with that firearm?
It's seems like a very slippery slope. Exactly what constitutes a "mentally unstable individual". Should a household be immediately 'Red Flagged' by a SWAT team if one of the children is diagnosed as being 'on the spectrum'.
On the other hand I see criminals being returned to street to murder again with no repercussion to those in who allowed it. I see that the deputy who stood by as children were being shot had to be rehired with back pay and rioters of all sorts being released. The Parkland shooter gave of plenty of warning signs. Yet I don't believe anyone was held accountable for that. In view of all of that it seems silly to pick on a dead lady.
Of course all of this is opining is 'medicine after the funeral' The lawsuit itself is or was about money and power.
Speculation, the new game by Milton Bradley!
the first part is fact, he got one of the guns that was supposedly his mother's, they should have been secured. Shot her with it, then got the other guns, which should have also been secured.
Crazy, because they had issues coming up with the money to pay me just under 10k for UID tags I made for their chassis rifles.
I agree with your statement about the reason for the lawsuit. And for no other reason, it makes good discussion after the fact, so hopefully we can learn from it. His mother and father were divorced(or at least legally separated) at the time and the father was not living in that household. The kid had a long history of mental illness, was seeing Dr's at the time, and on medication. All of which would legally prevent him from having a firearm. If there were firearm's in the house, they should have been locked up to prevent him from having access. I may be wrong, but I believe its part of that child gun safety act. Leave something around that makes it easy for someone to get that shouldn't have it, and you open yourself up to all kinds of liability. They are using this reasoning for the idea of requiring liability insurance if you own a firearm. Beyond that and pure speculation on my part, and we will never know the truth, the weapons that the mother "owned" sure didn't sound like the average female shooting enthusiast selection. Throw a nice trap gun, small 380, maybe a nice hunting rifle in there, yea, I'll believe that. But an AK style shotgun, an AR, and a 10 mm glock doesn't sound like most rich suburban wives gun want list. It sounds a lot like a teenage gamers want list, and if it have been proven(which it wont) she had bought them for him, yes, she would definitely been charged. As far as accountability goes, the mother should have been the first step for sure. As far as the video games, I agree its a slippery slope and I don't agree with a game game manufacture being held accountable for a mentally ill persons behavior, but its less of a stretch than holding Remington accountable for manufacturing something that functioned as advertised. Think about the fact that they charged Charlie Manson for telling the others to kill, influencing someone to commit a crime has its legality. Don't get me started on criminals being let off by politicly motivated Judges. To see them only to return to commit more crimes, with no accountability from the legal side. Unfortunately, with most of those positions being appointments, its out of our control. Only thing we can do is try and vote good people in when given the chance. Ever notice "to serve and protect" isn't on any police vehicles any more? There have been two cases that went to the supreme court that basically stated law enforcement is not legally required to prevent or stop crime. There are some real good LEO's out there(I've met a few) that would do anything they could to prevent crime or help someone in need, but there are more that are just there to punch the time clock and wait on retirement. Plus a few that are trying to make up for not being the crossing guard in 3rd grade. I've met a few of those as well.
Last edited:
Secured my ass .gov ain’t got no goddam say in how any taxpayers store their goddam guns. I’m not arguing that he should have access to the guns. My problem is .gov telling a taxpayer they have to secure their guns is an infringement on the 2A.
Last edited:
Can you tell me exactly what mental illness he was diagnosed with?
As an aside. Are you in favor of this?
I'll agree with you that it is pure speculation on your part and better left alone.
If you are going to go after Remington. I can't see how you can let video games slide. Considering they would have acted as training for a murderer. Then of course the doctors etc etc. Of course it is so much easier to sue one big company than numerous smaller ones like the doctors or individual game companies.
This is a further indictment of the video game makers. Who has more influence over young gamers?
Again I think this is all slippery slope kind of thinking. If Remington is fair game then how about the gun owner whose leaves a gun in his locked car overnight only to have it stolen and used to commit a murder?
After any terrible event there are always those who wish to 'do something' and most of the time that 'something' is wrong. Certainly there are many places in time where someone could have done something that may have changed what happened that day. In the finally analysis however a young man picked up a gun, killed his mother, and then 26 other people. He alone bears the responsibility for that action.
ChickenHawk
I'm a chicken hawk
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Video games are an easy cop-out. I played a lot of first person shooter games and never once felt the need for a shooting spree. Let's blame violent movies while we are at it. You are blaming media that millions use, but very few act out in any way. That sounds a lot like the gun control argument. How about what we do is blame the individual?
I cant remember what mental illness he was diagnosed with, only snippets from the press. Ultimately, he was the one responsible for his actions, unfortunately, we live in a world where everyone is looking for a scapegoat and we have to think outside our normal rationalizations to cover our ass. There's always someone who says its someone else fault, especially if that someone has money. Do I agree with Remington being sued for this event, absolutely not, do I think video game companies should be sued? Absolutely not. I'm just surprised that they haven't been. The tech world seems to be sheltered by libel. Imagine if he had been playing death race or GTA, then decided t steal his mothers car and drive thru the bus pickup area of that school, doing as much harm? Do you think the auto manufactures would have been justly sued? I think theres a lawyer out there somewhere, who would be trying to come up with some argument that the car manufacture could be. Leaving a firearm in an unsecured storage will get you in trouble, especially if a crime is committed with that firearm. Next time you buy a new fire arm, read that paper that comes with the trigger lock.
next time you buy a new firearm, read that piece of paper that comes with the trigger lock. The .gov already is telling us we have to secure our firearms. Many state governments are even more totalitarian with their storage requirements
I don’t read BS regulations & could care less what any .gov suggests I do with property they have no say over.
Last edited:
I agree. Exactly the point I am making.
As far as I have read his only diagnoses was aspergers now mostly referred to as a form of Autism or as you might hear people say 'on the spectrum'. Are all 'on the spectrum' people to be denied firearms? How about ADD? I am all for drawing lines, but only if they are clear lines. I don't think we should red flag people for wearing a T-shirt we don't like.
You didn't answer my question. Should gun owners be required to carry liability insurance? Some might consider this covering your backside.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just pointing out the slippery slope of throwing blame around as a method to just 'do something'.
No, i dont think gun owners should be required to have liabilty insurance. As i said earlier, blame should go to the shooter. I am pointing out links of responsibilties that laws and legal liability follow, you have to be prepaired for what the other side(or what ever you want to call them) will go to find someone else to blame to protect yourself. Im not saying i agree with them, but you have to be aware of what can happen legally to cover your ass.
True enough but it didn't help Remington and now apparently KCI.