Uvalde parents sue gunmakers
- Thread starter Chishawk1425
- Start date
Good. Sue them into oblivion. Considering they bribe our politicians to not do anything about their weapons slaughtering Americans.
I bet someone used to mockingly say something similar about the tobacco industry at some point.
In the end - the courts (and potentially a jury) will sort out if the case has merit. If it doesn't, the precious gun makers will be exonerated of any wrong-doing. If it does, they'll pay.
It's America bro. Whether you're a smirking kid in a MAGA hat from Convington Catholic suing WaPo for $250M or grieving parents suing the manufacturer of the gun that killed your child - you can find a lawyer and have your day in court. Hate the game, not the player.
Are you willing to use that same logic for every product that kills someone when used illegally?
Last edited:
When it is something that was created and designed to kill mass amounts of humans. What else is killing kids in America, like guns, that were designed to kill lots of humans? Nothing. Are you trying to use the "ban cars" argument?
Except 99.999% of these weapons in civilian hands don’t “kill lots of humans”. Or any humans for that matter. Save the hyperbole.
Problem is the tobacco industry knew their products where dangerous, denied it and did not supply warnings.
Gun industry acknowledges their products are dangerous and puts plenty of warnings with the product.
This isn't going to work. Like it or not guns are legal in this country and you can't make someone pay because their legally manufactured item was used in an illegal manner. Similar thing with the gun shop, if they did the appropriate legally required background checks, there really isn't a case here.
The police should be most held responsible but they are given immunity most of the time and arn't even legally required to protect you. So I don't think this will go anywhere either even though it should. This is why I think we need a separate code of justice for police officers similar to the UCMJ. That way we could punish them with prison time for cowardice and dereliction of duty.
This is basically the same thing as suing a car manufacturer because someone purposefully ran another person down.
Like I said, the courts will decide if anything nefarious has occurred based on the evidence presented. Building on the tobacco industry, we (the public) didn't know the industry was up to no good until it was exposed. Maybe there's shifty shit going on behind the scenes we don't know. Maybe not. That's why you can hire a lawyer in the good ol' USA.
I strongly doubt it.
The answer to these problems is better and more strict gun control and that's up to the legislatures. This end around doesn't seem likely to accomplish anything.
If there is anything the gun manufacturers could have reasonably done to prevent all of this while still manufacturing their legal products then they should pay. But I just can't see anything.
There are laws against using guns to kill people. They weren't designed to kill people illegally. There are legal uses for guns, including self defense. Especially self defense.
Some guns like the 1 used in Uvalde were designed for specifically to kill efficiently in war.
ArmaLite AR-15
I get their outrage. And I wouldn’t care if 80% of the guns in the country disappeared right now. Including every single AR-15. But, the rifle used in the Uvalde massacre is legal. It was manufactured legally and sold legally. Where can a lawsuit gain any ground in the face of that?
No, it was designed for civilian use by Eugene Stoner.
How the AR-15 Became America’s Rifle :: Guns.com
The classic AR-15 is one of the most popular firearms ever made, but it has a special place among American gun owners with a history to back it up.
www.guns.com
From your article:No, it was designed for civilian use by Eugene Stoner.
How the AR-15 Became America’s Rifle :: Guns.com
The classic AR-15 is one of the most popular firearms ever made, but it has a special place among American gun owners with a history to back it up.
That original rifle saw limited service with countries such as Portugal, but the later ArmaLite AR-15 and its many kin that were scaled down and chambered for the smaller .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO rounds eventually gained adoption by the U.S. military and many other nations.
Unfortunately, ArmaLite ran into some financial troubles and eventually sold its design to Colt, which wound up essentially coining it as the M16. Colt’s rifle started gaining U.S. military attention in the early 1960s, and by 1963 it was being issued to our troops in Vietnam. Let’s just say it didn’t make the first impression you’d expect, but after some quick changes and improvements, it became the U.S. military service rifle after the Vietnam war.
The design was for civilian use. The fact that Colt acquired the design and adapted it for military use years later doesn't change that fact.
Negligence doesn't matter if something is legal or not.
In this case the gun might be legal and sold legally, but you could argue negligence if the company for example targeted minors in marketing, made a part legally but still knew it made killing easier, didn't make change after a series of shootings, or a host of other arguments.
No, it was designed for civilian use by Eugene Stoner.
How the AR-15 Became America’s Rifle :: Guns.com
The classic AR-15 is one of the most popular firearms ever made, but it has a special place among American gun owners with a history to back it up.
So, the fact that the version available today is just really good at killing the most people possible in mass shooting type situations is what? A bonus? A feature? An unintended consequence?
I know, I know. It doesn't matter. There's no possible reason to re-evaluate things. Ma rights! 'Merica! 2A! Forefathers! Mental illness! 99.9999% good folk! Blah, blah, blah....
That's not what your article says. Please post the part of the article that says it was designed for civilian use.
So why aren't fully automatic guns legal for private ownership? They could be used for self defense. Or rocket launchers, they could be used for self defense.
What were they designed for? The guns used in mass shootings were 100% designed to mass kill humans. Whatever else you think is comparable is just silly, which was my answer to your question. Now you're moving the goal posts.
You never learn. Never call anybody else a moron. You're the most simpleton thinker on the board.
Can't we stop looking for reasons to sue people or companies? The person who bought the gun to use it in a nefarious way and then used it to kill people are the ONLY people at fault here. To try and blame the gun or the car he drove to get there or anyone other that the at fault party is what is wrong with this country. Progressive prosecutors failing to hold criminals responsible for their actions by letting them loose or reducing their sentences is the factor in the majority of our crime problems and the issue is the way our culture is currently treating violence and personal responsibility. (Don't scold Billy or make him feel bad or tell him he can't kill hundreds of people while playing his video game) The guns are not the problem. 99.8% of guns are never shot in a dangerous or illegal fashion but somehow politicians want to point to the guns because they're an easy target. Sounds like politics 101.
First, look at the patent.
Armalite only had 9 employees when the AR-10 was first produced.
And that proves what? The way to make money with a weapon like that at the time was to sell it to the military. I didn't say it was designed by the military, I said it was designed for the military.
Back to my original request, please copy and paste the lines from your article that state it was designed for civilian use.
ETA: Here is another line from your article which backs up my point.
The civilian market demand for the AR-15 wasn’t always as high as it is today, and the gun hosts significant differences from its military roots as a semi-auto-only rifle. However, its light weight, intuitive controls, shootability, and modularity have made it a long-term success.
Last edited:
Good points. I’d counter with Virginia Tech, Luby’s, San Ysidro McDonald’s, Columbine and a host of other bloodbaths that didn’t involve the use of AR-15s.
In late 1945 Stoner began working in the machine shop for Whittaker, an aircraft equipment company, and ultimately became a Design Engineer.
In 1954 he came to work as chief engineer for ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corporation. While at ArmaLite, he designed a series of prototype small arms, including the AR-3, AR-9, AR-11, and AR-12, none of which saw significant production. Their only real success during this period was the AR-5 survival rifle, which was adopted by the United States Air Force.[3]
In 1955, Stoner completed initial design work on the revolutionary ArmaLite AR-10, a lightweight (7.25 lbs.) select-fire infantry rifle in 7.62×51mm NATO caliber.
The AR-10 was submitted for rifle evaluation trials to the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground late in 1956. In comparison with competing rifle designs previously submitted for evaluation, the AR-10 was smaller, easier to fire in automatic, and much lighter. However it arrived very late in the testing cycle, and the army rejected the AR-10 in favor of the more conventional T44, which became the M14. The AR-10's design was later licensed to the Dutch firm of Artillerie Inrichtingen, which produced the AR-10 until 1960 for sale to various military forces.[8]
At the request of the U.S. military, Stoner's chief assistant, Robert Fremont along with Jim Sullivan designed the Armalite AR-15 from the basic AR-10 model, scaling it down to fire the small-caliber .223 Remington cartridge. The AR-15 was later adopted by United States military forces as the M16 rifle.[8][9]
Eugene Stoner - Wikipedia
and the gun store (unless it was sold illegally). The police force, I can see, but what can they prove. Is it law that police charge into a hostage situation guns blazing? ...while I definitely take issue with how it was handled after watching the videos, I'm curious what the basis for culpability is here .
For what? If no laws were broken, you can't sue a police force for cowardness. You can't sue a gun manufacturer for producing legal guns, and you can't sue a store for selling a gun legally (providing that happened). Laws must be changed before culpability can be enforced. Let me rephrase, of course you can sue, you most likely won't win, though.
Last edited:
Gross negligence? Not sure about the law but that was a shit show.
Absolutely, but how can that be proven? They aren't required to protect us...as said above, they don't have a UCMJ-type document and there's no bravery requirement. Regardless, it was VERY hard to watch that video.
Latest posts
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty- Latest: swagsurfer02
-
-
-
