SCOTUS Rules Gun Manufacturer Can be sued

[glocktogo]

The biggest threat to our legal system is that we have a very dumbed down jury pool. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe things that simply aren't true and have no legal basis. We all know Lanza sat in his basement playing violent video games all day every day. We know the brand of AR and company marketing had no real role in what he was telling his mom to buy. He was killing pixels on his tv screen with an AR and he wanted an AR, end of story. So we can look at the causal order of this event and see it was:

Lanza
Lanza's mom
School
Video game companies
Gun manufacturer
Ammo manufacturer
All other companies whose product(s) were utilized in the crime

We know video game manufacturers have deeper pockets than gun companies, so why not go there first? Because they wrapped themselves in the 1st Amendment and suddenly they're off limits legally. RemingBushmasterton wrapped themselves in the 2nd Amendment and that makes them the Rodney Dangerfield of defendants. They're a ripe target for an emotional jury pool shown bloody kid corpse images and they will find for plaintiffs.

If Remington loses this case (or even if they don't), most gun manufacturers will simply change their marketing practices and this will be a one off. It's just another skirmish in the never ending battle to save our rights.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It's bullet proof!!!




Oddly, they are pushing the "MIL' angle, the weight savings and fuel economy improvement, and the recycling aspect...

Actually, I was really hoping that the new Jeep would have an Aluminium body.

I think if the gun grabbers lose, they have to reimburse the companies for legal fees...

[Renegade]

Actually, if you read the details of the McDonald's case you very well may draw the conclusion that it was a justified suit.

I read it, since I believe the knees are not a place to store beverages, i have concluded it was not a justified suit. Glad to see most of it thrown out.

[1168]

Ambulance rides should be a stable price near major metropolitan areas. Life Flight should only be used in the most extreme of scenarios i.e. getting a person in a remote locale where hospitals are hours away.
.

When a patient receives a bill for an “ambulance ride”, they are sometimes shocked that it costs more than an Uber. There’s a lot of costs that are obscure to those who don’t know what an ambulance is for. You don’t just pay for a “ride”. You have to pay the crew’s pitiful salary. And the Supervisor’s. Maintenance and fuel costs much more than a Corolla. And software ain’t free, some of which is required by law. Speaking of law, we need lawyers too. And a physician as a medical director.

Supplies and equipment is expensive, also. Zoll X cardiac monitor/defibrillator with bag and cables costs $28,000. While these expensive supplies and items may not get used on every patient, they are required on the ambulance for the patients that actually require emergency care. That said, we don’t charge for procedures here and instead seek reimbursement based on level of care or acuity (3 rates) plus mileage. My agency consistently finishes the year in the negative. Only our two busiest ambulances that are in urban areas near hospitals ever break even just by billing. The other dozen, the taxpayer makes up the difference. So, we’re definitely not overcharging.

While I rarely involve air transport, there are valid reasons to utilize them outside of extremely remote areas. These reasons may not be obvious unless you view them from inside the system.