Reading this post at The Firearm Blog:
It occurs to me that the plaintiff's case is invalid because the murderer didn't purchase the gun in question.
His mother, who killed no one and was murdered for the weapon used, is the person whom the marketing affected.
The perpetrator used his mother's guns because those were the guns available to him, not because Bushmaster was marketing them as the perfect kid killer.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
I am sure the Defense will bring that line of reasoning up, but, of course, it will be brought up that his mom bought the gun at his urging. Which means she bought the gun for him, an ineligible person. Which is illegal. Which won't be brought up, of course, just like the buyer of the Parkland guns won't be charged because it doesn't fit the narrative.
ReplyDeleteAll lawsuits against gun companies should go something like this:
"Did the gun fire when the trigger was pulled?"
"Yes. Many times..."
"Case Dismissed!"
I know, one can dream.