Quote:Chard wrote on May 5
th, 2013 at 1:00pm:
No, they created a product in response to a consumer demand.
A decision that is morally reprehensible.
In your opinion it's "immoral". In legal fact it's completely kosher under US law.
Quote:Just because a consumer demand exists, it doesn't mean supplying that demand is the right thing to do.
Again, that's your opinion and if the product was illegal or unsafe to operate then you'd have a point. Problem is the product Cricket produced is A) completely legal in the US, and B) is perfectly safe to operate if you follow the manufacturer's instruction. Sparks not only failed to heed those instructions, she did so in a way that she could he held criminally liable for.
Quote:Responsibility for this tragedy starts with the gun manufacturer, and ends with the parents.
And what measure are you using to make that conclusion? It sure as hell doesn't have any legal basis on cricket's part.
Quote:The stupid parents have to suffer with this for the rest of their lives.
So will their son, who gets to spend the rest of his pife knowing he killed his sister because his mother is an irresponsible twat.
Quote:Hopefully Cricket will go broke: they need to pay for their greed-driven irresponsibility.
Doubtful. If anything people will buy more of their products. It happens evety time when a shooting happens that gets some fool in congress to indruce a gun control bill. For example, after Congresswoman Gabreil Giffords was shot there was a call for banning high capacity magazines. Know what happened? Sales for high capacity pistol magazines jumped by just shy of 300%.