Its the gunmakers fault, oh please

[Bee Prepared]

The families of nine of the 26 people killed and a teacher injured two years ago at the Sandy Hook Elementary School filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used in the shooting.

The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed Monday in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for hunting or home defen


"The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the United States Military to meet the needs of changing warfare," attorney Josh Koskoff said in a release. "In fact, one of the Army's specifications for the AR-15 was that it has the capability to penetrate a steel helmet."

In addition to Bushmaster, the families have named Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the store where the Bushmaster rifle was purchased in 2010.

[uglypitbull]

about as stupid as suing car manufacturers and liquor companies for drunk driving accidents.

That lawyer is an idiot, you can penetrate a steel helmet with a lot of guns

[Fiannan]

Blaming gun manufacturers for the misuse of weapons makes as much sense as blaming the Mormon religion on the weird torture program the US government uses.

[Fiannan]

Or about as much sense as what you just said.

Well, it was Mormons behind the torture program, but my point is that it would be unfair to blame Mormonism itself.

[mattman]

If you will remember the day of the shooting, the police found the AR-15 in the trunk of the car.

[Epistemology]

Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie Odonell fat...

Bumper sticker

[Army Of Truth]

Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie Odonell fat...

Bumper sticker

=)) =)) =)) =))

Good one! Here's some more:

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make you fat. - Will Ferrell

[Bee Prepared]

[Bee Prepared]

[KMCopeland]

Do you feel that Camel cigarettes should be free to target children with it's Joe Camel ads? Why shouldn't 12 year old boys be able to buy Penthouse & Hustler magazines if they want to? Should cigarette companies be liable for the harm their product does? Asbestos manufacturers? Why shouldn't drug companies be allowed to legally sell heroin to recreational users? Or cocaine? They used to put cocaine in Coca-Cola -- shouldn't they be allowed to still do that?

The suit is on very solid ground. Anybody can buy one of those guns. It's insane. The Army doesn't even let soldiers use those guns without training. It makes no sense at all to sell a product designed for warfare to the general public, and it makes less sense to object to a suit designed to protect the general public from their massively lethal use in the hands of crazy people.

[Obrien]

Come on KMC, virtually anything can be a weapon if your wanting to hurt someone. Should we sue the manufacturer of anything used as a weapon? It will be a drab world without stuff like gasoline, electricity, municipal water, cars, clothing, etc.

[KMCopeland]

Come on KMC, virtually anything can be a weapon if your wanting to hurt someone. Should we sue the manufacturer of anything used as a weapon?

No. This specific suit however, has merit.


Okay. You asked me a yes or no question. I answered it. I asked a handful of yes or no questions. Will you answer them?

[Steve Clark]

For some reason I feel the need to embed a vid of my kid's first time shooting. Proud papa.

[KMCopeland]

Except it was his mother that bought the guns. At least some of them. She knew he was sick and obsessed with guns and violent war video games. She was even planning to buy him another gun that Christmas.

Exactly my point. She had no business buying that particular gun. She was a law-abiding citizen. If that gun had been against the law for her to buy, she wouldn't have bought one. And 20 little kids would still be alive.

You can't compare drugs and cigarettes and porn to guns. There isn't a good safe or healthy way to use any of those. There IS good, safe and healthy ways to use a gun.

Plenty of recreational drugs have a useful purpose. Joseph Smith felt that tobacco had a useful purpose. Porn -- nothing redeeming at all about it -- yet it's still legal if you're old enough.


There are good, safe, and healthy ways to use most guns. I don't think they should be outlawed for ordinary citizen use. The gun in question wasn't designed to do anything good, safe, or healthy. It was designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people in a war situation. Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy them.

And there is also this thing called personal accountability.

So why is it illegal for 12 year olds to buy pornographic magazines? What happened to personal accountability? I'll tell you what happened to it. We are a society that believes in protecting each other at our best, and from each other at our worst. In helping 12 year old boys lead decent lives by making pornography harder for them to get hold of. In protecting buildings full of first graders from desperately sick people if we can. And we can. There's no excuse for not doing it.


There is no justifiable reason to oppose outlawing high capacity magazines and military assault weapons for sale to ordinary people.

I wish there was a way to prevent guns from getting into the hands of mentally unstable people. There's not a way to 100% accomplish this.

There are ways to minimize it. Ways that don't touch the 2nd amendment. We're insane not to do them.

Just like there isn't a way to 100% stop people from killing, raping, and robbing.

So why bother to make laws against them? To make them less likely, that's why.

All we can do is try to weed those people out.

That's not all we can do by a long shot.

But it can't come at the expense of those that follow the law.

I couldn't agree more.

[Steve Clark]

There are good, safe, and healthy ways to use most guns. I don't think they should be outlawed for ordinary citizen use. The gun in question wasn't designed to do anything good, safe, or healthy. It was designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people in a war situation. Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy them.

Please see my video above. No humans have ever been injured from the >10,000 rounds through my AR-15s.

[Obrien]

Come on KMC, virtually anything can be a weapon if your wanting to hurt someone. Should we sue the manufacturer of anything used as a weapon?

No. This specific suit however, has merit.


Okay. You asked me a yes or no question. I answered it. I asked a handful of yes or no questions. Will you answer them?

I'm on my phone right now and it's a tremendous pain to go back and respond to your questions using the galaxy 3 as a tool. when I get a computer, I will. as a hint, try looking at your questions through the lens of personal responsibility and you'll likely get pretty close to my answers. I know that will take stepping outside of your staunchly democrat, statist, "it takes a village to raise a child" paradigm, but give it a try.

Merry Christmas!

[Obrien]

There are good, safe, and healthy ways to use most guns. I don't think they should be outlawed for ordinary citizen use. The gun in question wasn't designed to do anything good, safe, or healthy. It was designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people in a war situation. Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy them.

Please see my video above. No humans have ever been injured from the >10,000 rounds through my AR-15s.

oh, but you are not an ORDINARY human.

[KMCopeland]

There are good, safe, and healthy ways to use most guns. I don't think they should be outlawed for ordinary citizen use. The gun in question wasn't designed to do anything good, safe, or healthy. It was designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people in a war situation. Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy them.

Please see my video above. No humans have ever been injured from the >10,000 rounds through my AR-15s.

Well good for you. I hope I don't need to tell you that fact doesn't change anything.


I did see your video. I refrained from commenting. You seem determined though, so here you go.

Your little boy is precious. As are all little boys around his age. Now picture him going to school one day, and not coming home because someone less responsible than you left their assault rifle and plenty of ammo easily accessible to a dangerous individual who killed him with it. I mean it. Picture that. You send him to school and he never comes home -- and all because AR-15s are far too easy to own.

They should be harder to own.

[Steve Clark]

There are good, safe, and healthy ways to use most guns. I don't think they should be outlawed for ordinary citizen use. The gun in question wasn't designed to do anything good, safe, or healthy. It was designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people in a war situation. Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy them.

Please see my video above. No humans have ever been injured from the >10,000 rounds through my AR-15s.

oh, but you are not an ORDINARY human.

Touche!

[Steve Clark]

There are good, safe, and healthy ways to use most guns. I don't think they should be outlawed for ordinary citizen use. The gun in question wasn't designed to do anything good, safe, or healthy. It was designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people in a war situation. Ordinary citizens should not be allowed to buy them.

Please see my video above. No humans have ever been injured from the >10,000 rounds through my AR-15s.

Well good for you. I hope I don't need to tell you that fact doesn't change anything.


I did see your video. I refrained from commenting. You seem determined though, so here you go.

Your little boy is precious. As are all little boys around his age. Now picture him going to school one day, and not coming home because someone less responsible than you left their assault rifle and plenty of ammo easily accessible to a dangerous individual who killed him with it. I mean it. Picture that. You send him to school and he never comes home -- and all because AR-15s are far too easy to own.

They should be harder to own.

No worries, I have a thick skin.

I don't worry about those things because of the statistical improbability of anything like that happening. I'm far more concerned about some distracted soccer mom driving her 7,000 lb SUV through a red light and hurting my kids.

[Ezra]

I think we need to face the bigger problem befor we talk about guns.

According to the FBI, there were a total of 625 murders committed with rifles and shotguns in 2012. That breaks down to 322 murders that were rifle related and 303 that were shotgun related.

The total number of deaths committed with fists, hammers, and other blunt objects was 1,196. That breaks down to 518 murders related to hammers and blunt objects and 678 related to fists.

Taken together, the rate of murder by fists and hammers was nearly 100 percent higher than the rate of murder by rifles or shotguns.

So we should be working at banning hammers baseball bats tree limbs and other blunt object along with fists. As this is the bigger problem.

Meanwhile guns did this.

On July 9, 2013, a bill to recognize Illinois gun owners’ right to carry concealed firearms was passed by both chambers of the state Legislature. Illinois became the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns.

shutterstock.com
shutterstock.com
Gun control advocates warned that high-crime areas, like Chicago, would only see more violence if residents were allowed to carry guns in public.

In reality, the opposite may be happening.

On Tuesday, the Chicago Police Department announced that the city experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 in the first quarter of 2014. There were 6 fewer murders than the same timeframe in 2013 — a 9 percent drop — and 55 fewer murders than 2012, police said.

Further, there were reportedly 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims compared to last year. There have also been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims compared to the first quarter in 2012.

All crime is down 25 percent from 2013 and police say they have confiscated over 1,300 illegal guns in the last three months.

Now, it’s entirely too soon to conclude that the concealed carry law is partly responsible for Chicago’s across-the-board drop in the crime. However, it is not unreasonable to conclude the drop in crime may undercut gun control advocates’ argument that more guns equal more crime.

It should also be noted that the first concealed carry permits were issued in late February, so the decrease in crime can’t yet be attributed to more people carrying guns.

The more telling statistics will be revealed as 2014 marches on. Still, as always, correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy called the drop in crime a “trend.” He attributed the drop to the “talent level of individuals” on the police force, “intelligent policing strategies” and other programs. He did not mention the concealed carry law.

[Obrien]

Do you feel that Camel cigarettes should be free to target children with it's Joe Camel ads? YES. I grew up in the era of the cartoony Joe Camel. I never smoked because I had been taught not to. My grandpa smoked, even around us kids, and it only solidified the common sense of not smoking. I am a big believer in free speech and consequence. I do believe that people who manufacture cigs will one day feel ashamed for their chosen vocation. However, that's their choice - no smoking is my choice and what I teach my kids.

Why shouldn't 12 year old boys be able to buy Penthouse & Hustler magazines if they want to? Sorry, that's not a Yes / No question.

Should cigarette companies be liable for the harm their product does? Yes, they should split the medical costs for anyone who smoked then developed smoking related problems 50 / 50. It's a person that smokes, but the tobacco companies know they product causes long term damage and is addicting. Perhaps if they had to help pay the cost for THEIR actions they would re-evaluate the viability of their product. If a person smoked exclusively their own tobacco raised on their own farm, they should be 100% responsible for the damage to their health caused by smoking.

Asbestos manufacturers? No, they should not. If you choose to buy asbestos "stuff", be prepared for the potential consequences. Asbestos is a different animal than cigarettes because it is not addictive and is not made specifically to be taken into the body. Asbestos is only dangerous when it is friable, so the average person will not have a problem with asbestos exposure.

Why shouldn't drug companies be allowed to legally sell heroin to recreational users? Or cocaine? They used to put cocaine in Coca-Cola -- shouldn't they be allowed to still do that? Technically, these aren't all Yes / No questions, but I say Yes to selling heroin to recreational users, with the same type of 50 /50 scenario for damages listed above. Same with cocaine. I have no problem with markets settling these questions, but I have a problem with people and companies taking all "benefits" (the money made and the high) and leaving others with the "costs" of their actions. Drugs are different from cigarettes in that they may seriously affect your judgment. If you injure others while high, you ought to pay the damaged person or their family (NOT the government), and the manufacturer should share in the liability as these types of injurious situations are pretty easily foreseen given enough people taking hard drugs. If they labeled Coca Cola with cocaine and made consumers aware of the ingredients, I have no problem with coke in coke.

The suit is on very solid ground. The suit is crazy. This is America. Gun ownership and use are freedoms we are blessed to enjoy. Thank God for our founding fathers. Anybody can buy one of those guns. It's insane. The Army doesn't even let soldiers use those guns without training. I've never been in the military, but I have lots of family who have been. It is my understanding that the military trains you in their way for just about everything you may do in the military. Is it a surprise to you they train people how to use guns? Sadly, a lot of people from urban environments have no experience with firearms, so naturally they need to be trained. Duh. It makes no sense at all to sell a product designed for warfare to the general public, and it makes less sense to object to a suit designed to protect the general public from their massively lethal use in the hands of crazy people. I believe you have a duty and an obligation to protect yourself and others. That's one of the reasons Arizona is such a great place to live - concealed carry without a permit is the law here. I guess you and I will probably agree to disagree.

[Thomas]

Why do so many that support the freedom to own a dangerous product like a gun oppose the owning of drugs?

Guns can be used to harm others. Drugs are mainly used to harm yourself.

[deep water]

KMC; God gave us free agency. Would you advocate taking that away also?

[Fiannan]

I don't worry about those things because of the statistical improbability of anything like that happening. I'm far more concerned about some distracted soccer mom driving her 7,000 lb SUV through a red light and hurting my kids.

In such an event then would it make sense to sue the car manufacturer? Maybe someone should sue the company that made her mobile phone or the maker of the Facebook game she might have been playing, or even Facebook itself as she was on that site in the first place!

None of that makes sense, does it? Neither does suing a gun manufacturer for someone taking a tool that could be used for many things and then turning it on people.