Sandy Hook Families Sue Gun Manufacturer

[Still Waters]

The families of nine of the 26 people killed by a gunman at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut have sued the manufacturer of the rifle used in the attack.

The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit also names the distributor and seller of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.

The families claim the rifle should not have been made available to the public because it is a military weapon unsuited for civilian use.

https://uk.news.yaho...50.html#bgoTp3c

[Professor Buzzkill]

Why not sue the founding fathers for cementing the right to bear arms in the constitution?

[BrooklynGuy]

They should sue the health insurance companies for refusing to treat mental illness.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mental-illness-health-care-insurance-60-minutes/

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

So, does that mean if they are successful then the families of anyone shot by a gun can sue the manufacturer.A lot of companies will be going broke.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So, does that mean if they are successful then the families of anyone shot by a gun can sue the manufacturer.A lot of companies will be going broke.

That's certainly one way to get guns off the streets.

[+and-then]

The weapon was sold legally and was used without permission - kind of like the vast majority that gang related gun crimes are committed with. Unless some over zealous lib judge pronounces his diktat over this case it will fail. If he DOES.. it will just fail later...

The second amendment does not say we have a right to bear arms as long as (insert qualifier here), but that we have a RIGHT to bear arms...period.

[questionmark]

It will fail, period. The only place it would have a fighting chance is California.

[White Crane Feather]

It will fail, period. The only place it would have a fighting chance is California.

We have ar15s in California. Our large magazines only need a rivet in them to stop them from holding 10, but the rivet can came out very easiky. and there is a magnetic insert that is considered a tool for the bullet button. Nonsensical laws are easy to get around.

All weapons are like military weapons. My kelttech-su16 looks nothing like an ar, can fold into a back pack, and has the same potential. My 308 hunting rifle could easily kill more people from a sniper position than any Ar and it's perfectly legal. People get emotional about what something looks like without the slightest understanding of what it's capabilities actually are.

These families will get absolutely no where with this lawsuit, I would be really interested in who is paying for the lawyer. I'd also be interested in the lawyers political affiliations.

[Thanato]

Perhaps during car companies for those killed by drunk drivers?

[Thanato]

On my phone, I meant sueing.

Anyway, they are sueing because they state the Bushnaster Ar-15 is a Military Rifle.

Unfortunately it's a non case. The Ar-15 is a civilian spotter rifle and just looks similar to a military rifle.

[UFO_Monster]

Are these people aware that military surplus arms are commonly available for purchase in the United States firearms market? I bet they don't. I own surplus rifles and handguns that were available in my local gun shops. But this won't go in their favor. Unfortunately, the families don't want to understand the nature of firearms, and only spout what the media relays to the public ("they're assault weapons," "guns are dangerous," "nobody needs them," etc.).

[Princess Serenity]

I hope this gets thrown out because the gun company had no hand in the shooting. The gun is legal. Period. Common sense had gone out the window lately. Why don't you focus the attention on the person who caused this. But you guys probably wouldn't.

[White Crane Feather]

Somehow I doubt it's the brain child of one of the families and probably the political aspirations of an enterprising attorney..... Either or or both. It's only nine of 26. This should say something.

[UFO_Monster]

I hope this gets thrown out because the gun company had no hand in the shooting. The gun is legal. Period. Common sense had gone out the window lately. Why don't you focus the attention on the person who caused this. But you guys probably wouldn't.

I look at it this way: I don't judge a musician by what he/she uses to play music. If the music sounds awful, 99.9% of the time it's the artist who is responsible for it. Anybody who says "Nickelback sucks" isn't referring to the instruments they use, but the people playing the instruments. The same logic should be used with a gun. If something must be despised, it should be the person. If my father were murdered in cold blood by a man with a gun, I wouldn't be demanding the heads of whoever manufactured the gun. I'd be demanding the head of his killer*.

*Pending that the killer didn't already off himself/herself.

Edited December 16, 2014 by UFO_Monster

[Gunn]

Yeah this is political, no doubt about it. Somebody's taking advantage of the whole thing for their personal gain.

Users are losers, man.

[+and-then]

The greatest REAL effect of such moves and changes in laws is this:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/24/wave-goodbye-the-list-of-firearms-manufacturers-fleeing-gun-control-states/

[questionmark]

Perhaps during car companies for those killed by drunk drivers?

To the contrary of gun manufacturers, the manufacturers of other goods can even be held liable for damages that happen during normal use of their products. That is what killed the small aircraft manufacturing in the US, where we were leading before all those liability laws appeared. Now you have to buy your 2-4 seater used or from abroad.

[Thanato]

To the contrary of gun manufacturers, the manufacturers of other goods can even be held liable for damages that happen during normal use of their products. That is what killed the small aircraft manufacturing in the US, where we were leading before all those liability laws appeared. Now you have to buy your 2-4 seater used or from abroad.

I doubt anyone has sued a car manufacturer due to loss of life resulting from impaired driving.

[questionmark]

I doubt anyone has sued a car manufacturer due to loss of life resulting from impaired driving.

quite, but that surely is not the point some try to discuss away.

[Rafterman]

But wait, how coud these folk sue? I thought they weren't real people. At least that's what some around here have told me to believe.

[aquatus1]

Why not sue the founding fathers for cementing the right to bear arms in the constitution?

Because they didn't, and because no one would want it pointed out that the document where they did address the subject, they did specify precisely what they were talking about, in specific detail, that would utterly ruin half the arguments gun rights fanciers like to throw around.

In all cases, this isn't going to go anywhere. Worst case scenario, manufacturer quietly negotiates a settlement.

[aquatus1]

I doubt anyone has sued a car manufacturer due to loss of life resulting from impaired driving.

Nah, that's what you sue the bars for.

[aquatus1]

The greatest REAL effect of such moves and changes in laws is this:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/24/wave-goodbye-the-list-of-firearms-manufacturers-fleeing-gun-control-states/

Huh.

Takes some chutzpah to use such words as "fleeing from" and "refugees", to describe your freely made decision to move somewhere more profitable than your current profitable location.

[+and-then]

Huh.

Takes some chutzpah to use such words as "fleeing from" and "refugees", to describe your freely made decision to move somewhere more profitable than your current profitable location.

Nah, it's a common enough rhetorical tactic among the Left. They are just explaining their reasoning to those too dense to get it. As in - slam the door on our profitability and treat us like villains, we'll go where the climate is friendlier. Problem solved for both parties it seems. Sometimes one's principles bear a cost - no news there.

[Babe Ruth]

But wait, how coud these folk sue? I thought they weren't real people. At least that's what some around here have told me to believe.

That will be the most interesting angle on this lawsuit, at least IMO.

The discovery process will be very interesting if it is managed in a regular and open way. I can't wait! This holds the potential to finally bring to light so many issues.