FlSwampRat
Member
There was a story on our local news radio station this morning about the progress of the Newtown suit against Remington. The story said that the basis of the suit was that Remington had marketed the AW used in the shooting as a combat type of firearm.
I'm trying to figure out how this matters in this case as the shooter didn't buy or otherwise own the gun used. Are they trying to say that the marketing was a factor in which weapons he chose to steal from his Mother who he killed before he stole them.
It seems to me that their idea is that things are marketed to more than just purchasing consumers, they're also marketed to those who would steal them. Why would a company do that, they're making nothing off of secondary market sales and definitely not when the item is stolen. Unless they're thinking that the company is motivating first the consumer to buy the item, then the thief to steal the item and then the consumer to replace the item with another of the same brand and model.
I'm trying to figure out how this matters in this case as the shooter didn't buy or otherwise own the gun used. Are they trying to say that the marketing was a factor in which weapons he chose to steal from his Mother who he killed before he stole them.
It seems to me that their idea is that things are marketed to more than just purchasing consumers, they're also marketed to those who would steal them. Why would a company do that, they're making nothing off of secondary market sales and definitely not when the item is stolen. Unless they're thinking that the company is motivating first the consumer to buy the item, then the thief to steal the item and then the consumer to replace the item with another of the same brand and model.