Sandy Hook parents suing gun manufacturer...

[nolesincebirth]

I think the better lawsuit would be against the town and school district for failing to maintain safe premises. It was foreseeable that an individual could cause harm on property yet the town/school failed to maintain adequate security.

I think we should start holding the towns and property owners liable. If those kids died in a fire and there wasn't adequate fire suppression in place, they'd likely be criminally charged and no doubt held liable in a lawsuit. Why is there a different standard for fire than security?

 

[TJ8869]

You do realize the weapon used in that shooting was NOT and assault rifle right?

I guess that depends on your definition of assault rifle. What I don't understand is why they are going after Remington. As I understand it, the rifle he used for the murders at the school was made by Bushmaster. The only possible connection is that the ammunition may have been made by Remington.

 

[Hawkeyenuts66]

I guess that depends on your definition of assault rifle. What I don't understand is why they are going after Remington. As I understand it, the rifle he used for the murders at the school was made by Bushmaster. The only possible connection is that the ammunition may have been made by Remington.

It isn't my definition of "assault rifle", an assault rifle has a selective fire option to switch out of semi-automatic mode. The only reason people call an AR-15 an assault rifle is due to cosmetics, it is still just a semi-automatic rifle. The only real differences between an AR-15 and a Marlin Model 60 is the magazine configuration and the caliber.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[TJ8869]

It isn't my definition of "assault rifle", an assault rifle has a selective fire option to switch out of semi-automatic mode. The only reason people call an AR-15 an assault rifle is due to cosmetics, it is still just a semi-automatic rifle. The only real differences between an AR-15 and a Marlin Model 60 is the magazine configuration and the caliber.

I agree with the rest of your post.

So your contention is that it's not an assault rifle because it doesn't have the option of switching to burst fire? That seems like a fairly trivial distinction when you have a room full of defenseless 7-year-olds, a dufflebag full of 30-round magazines, and the ability to fire at least one round every second.

 

[sijoint]

Come up with a list of realistic uses for a knife vs an automatic pistol or assault rifle. Gun freaks really suck at analogies, or critical thinking.

The gun salesman of the year....for the 8th year in a row is.....our distinguished President
OOOOOObama!!!!!

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

You have the thought process of a child

Post something of substance rather than a blanket personal attack, then I will care. But you won't. Gun freaks like you lose when it comes to a logical debate so this is BAU. The people who attack the motives of Sandy Hook parents are lower than pond scum.

 

[sijoint]

Post something of substance rather than a blanket personal attack, then I will care. But you won't. Gun freaks like you lose when it comes to a logical debate so this is BAU. The people who attack the motives of Sandy Hook parents are lower than pond scum.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

Post something of substance rather than a blanket personal attack, then I will care.

Your first post in the thread:

The Tiny Penis Patrol, AKA American gun owners, acting like the white trash they are.

LOL

 

[IaHawk44]

Congrats - you're not me

I own four Remingtons and they have never killed anyone.

>

Congrats - you're not mentally ill.

 

[Hawkeyenuts66]

So your contention is that it's not an assault rifle because it doesn't have the option of switching to burst fire? That seems like a fairly trivial distinction when you have a room full of defenseless 7-year-olds, a dufflebag full of 30-round magazines, and the ability to fire at least one round every second.

So you are saying that any semi-automatic weapon that accepts a high capacity magazine is an assault weapon? If this is the case then you and I will have to agree to disagree. An assault weapon is defined as having the ability to switch to a burst fire option. Now the debate on high capacity magazines is a different topic entirely.

 

[TJ8869]

Post something of substance rather than a blanket personal attack, then I will care. But you won't. Gun freaks like you lose when it comes to a logical debate so this is BAU. The people who attack the motives of Sandy Hook parents are lower than pond scum.

Again, what law did Remington violate? What makes them responsible for Adam Lanza's actions? Nancy Lanza purchased the gun legally and then irresponsibly gave it to her mentally troubled son. But the parents can't sue her because she's dead. And why are they suing Remington when the gun was made by Bushmaster?

 

[ping72]

So are you in favor of GM getting sued when someone drives a car into a crowd? How about the car salesman and the gas station? This crap is just stupid.
BTW why are all of you gun grabbers so obsessed with the size of the male member? This is a common theme with you guys.

A more apt analogy would be if the manufacturer of tanks or military helicopters started selling their vehicles and ammunition to civilians to make a few extra bucks.

People have been trained and deemed physically or mentally capable to drive a car, so GM would not be liable.

Another analogy would be if GM started marketing their vehicles to 12 year olds who aren't trained to drive. Then a dealership sells one to a 12 year old, and that kid drives his car into his playground because he's mad at his friends. But that's still not a good analogy because the govt is smart enough to make sure ppl are capable of using a car, unlike guns. So laws would be broken making GM not liable.

 

[The Tradition]

This suit is about hurting an evil and reckless industry.

Huh?

How is using lawsuits against an industry that you personally don't like remotely acceptable in a free country?

 

[fredjr82]

Sad but true

 

[TJ8869]

So you are saying that any semi-automatic weapon that accepts a high capacity magazine is an assault weapon? If this is the case then you and I will have to agree to disagree. An assault weapon is defined as having the ability to switch to a burst fire option. Now the debate on high capacity magazines is a different topic entirely.

I understand the technical distinction and I'm not disagreeing with your definition. I'm simply saying that the difference is negligible and the end result is pretty much the same. In fact if anything, burst mode somewhat diminishes your ability to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. It fires multiple rounds before you even have time to re-aim the gun at your next victim. This wastes ammunition and forces you to have to reload more frequently.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

So when some teenage girl rear ends and kills another while texting then obviously Apple is culpable, right?

 

[Pepperman]

Sad but true

Oh, that's a good snap... maybe you and your boy Dan should be thinking about the Supreme Court's ruling back in the 70s. Check that one out if you're concerned about lives of innocent children.

 

[fredjr82]

Oh, that's a good snap... maybe you and your boy Dan should be thinking about the Supreme Court's ruling back in the 70s. Check that one out if you're concerned about lives of innocent children.

Only a truly delusional gun nut would find a way to compare a mass shooting of children to abortion. Dan's Tweet proves to be more and more true every time this subject comes up. Sick people in this world who defend the guns rather than the kids killed by them.

 

[Pepperman]

Fred, as usual, you're not picking up on this... let me type it bigger and feel free to read slowly:

"ONCE AMERICA DECIDED KILLING CHILDREN WAS BEARABLE, IT WAS OVER."
- Dan

 

[fredjr82]

Fred, as usual, you're not picking up on this... let me type it bigger and feel free to read slowly:

"ONCE AMERICA DECIDED KILLING CHILDREN WAS BEARABLE, IT WAS OVER."
- Dan

Only a truly delusional gun nut would find a way to compare a mass shooting of children to abortion. Dan's Tweet proves to be more and more true every time this subject comes up. Sick people in this world who defend the guns rather than the kids killed by them.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Your first post in the thread:



LOL

The difference was I didn't end there, but you know, don't let that fact get in your way.

 

[DavenportHawk8]

I feel bad for these parents, they sent their kids to a "safe" place and unfortunately some nut job had to go and ruin their lives. I am a gun owner (maybe not as hardcore) as others, but I enjoy them. I am supportive of any regulations to make it harder for people to get a gun. If you are law abiding citizen, you should have no problem getting one. I could not imagine the pain that these parents are going through. Losing a child has to be the worst thing in the world to endure.

Now I don't think they should get any $$ of out, if they want to sue or fight for stricter laws I am okay with that. Money should not be distributed to these families. These gun companies complied w/the law and like another poster said, the "gun" itself did not kill anyone. There is always someone with their finger on the trigger that did that. It sucks and I hope they can keep people like that nut job in sandy hook and the weirdo out in CA from getting their hands on guns. But I know its impossible do that.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Come up with a list of realistic uses for a knife vs an automatic pistol or assault rifle. Gun freaks really suck at analogies, or critical thinking.

Guns are very often used to hunt or shoot at targets.

The analogy is valid. If some idiot uses a legally manufactured product to kill someone, the manufacturer should not be held responsible.

Car
Gun
Knife
Hammer
Chain Saw
Chemicals
Lighter
etc.

Oh, and I don't own a gun.

 

[86Hawkeye]

I think the better lawsuit would be against the town and school district for failing to maintain safe premises. It was foreseeable that an individual could cause harm on property yet the town/school failed to maintain adequate security.

I think we should start holding the towns and property owners liable. If those kids died in a fire and there wasn't adequate fire suppression in place, they'd likely be criminally charged and no doubt held liable in a lawsuit. Why is there a different standard for fire than security?

Could be, but it depends on what the "test" would be in terms of how far the town or school should have to go to maintain a safe premises. Would there be some sort of "reasonableness" test?

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

The difference was I didn't end there, but you know, don't let that fact get in your way.

Oh, I know you didn't... Nice work. From other posts in this thread:

Are you really that stupid?

Typical Conservative slime.

Re-read who I quoted then, and shut up.

You are a complete moron.

No one will ever accuse you of being an intellectual.

People who think this suit is about getting money are completely helpless idiots.

And to tie it altogether with a cherry on top:

Gun freaks like you lose when it comes to a logical debate so this is BAU.

LOL

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

The purpose of the guns that are being targeted is to kill people. Any claim otherwise is disingenuous.

 

[nolesincebirth]

Could be, but it depends on what the "test" would be in terms of how far the town or school should have to go to maintain a safe premises. Would there be some sort of "reasonableness" test?

Good question and I don't know the answer but my hunch is yes. Was the security reasonable in light of foreseeable dangers? There is already well established premises liability law in most states. If people were getting shot at a nationwide store chain on a regular basis, that store would no doubt hire additional security throughout the country. No place can guarantee complete safety but they can't turn a blind eye either.

IMO, school shootings have become common enough that school districts should prepare for them (I think with armed law enforcement at school). Society has received far too much notice at this point to claim ignorance or surprise every time one happens.

 

[Gimmered]

The purpose of the guns that are being targeted is to kill people. Any claim otherwise is disingenuous.

That is complete BS. I am one of millions that have an AR 15. It is nothing more than a target, plinking rifle. It is simply a big boys .22. Light weight low recoil and very accurate rifle.

They also would be pretty much exactly what the SCOTUS protected in the US vs Miller.