Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[ChrisL]

The GUN didn't make Lanza kill people. If he hadn't been able to steal his mother's gun, perhaps he would have made a bomb to carry out his sick fantasy.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, because I'm sure the first thing a criminal will do when he gets a hot gun or straw buyer to get a gun for him is look at those warning labels the way smokers and drinkers carefully do.

Again, guy, criminals aren't the problem here. Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal. he was a nut whose crazy mother had military grade weapons she never should have been allowed to buy.

Criminals aren't the problem? Could you be a bigger loser?

 

[ChrisL]

You can't see government using the courts to put companies out of business that they don't like as a bad thing? Because if anybody would set that precedent, then alcohol companies are next. Who would you like to live in a dry country????

again, the Alcohol companies aren't in any real danger because they are responsible corporate citizens. The gun industry is in the crosshairs because they are manifestly irresponsible.

How so? Why don't you go into that a little more, please?

 

[ChrisL]

The type of handgun that Lanza allegedly used ejects shells.....and they fly up....if you believe this 19 year old shrimp had a semi automatic and then used it to kill himself? That is your deal......

Shells don't eject into your face with any regularity, who could sell such a gun? I did have a .45acp round hit my forehead once, but only once. Were you doing the gansta sideways shooting?

Lanza used a handgun, not the AR. Yes, you can put a semi-auto round through your skull, why wouldn't you be able to?

As far as the OP, I believe the suit would only apply to Connecticut manufacturer, like Bushmaster (last I heard). Many of them are fleeing the north due to this sort of hostility. I don't see how a Connecticut ruling could effect another state. But as said, the suit will be a big loser for the idiots, the weapon, even if used, wasn't defective.

Incorrect.

Based on what, your personal theory?

Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting | Conservative Byte
An AR-15, or the so-called “Assault Weapon”, was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged.

Oh yeah. Now that you mention that, I remember hearing something about that.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Hmmm. Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies. Lol.

what about skinny people who have it?.....

That's really not the point.

you did not get my point did ya?.....

 

[ChrisL]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

And what leads you to make this "diagnosis?" Please share all you know about her mental health and her past medical history since you seem to have examined her and made a diagnosis.

 

[ChrisL]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

I wonder where Joey got his internet psychiatry degree? From a Cracker Jack box?

 

[ChrisL]

Hmmm. Really though, I guess fat people who have diabetes and perhaps have lost a limb should be able to sue junk food manufacturers if they have eaten too many Twinkies. Lol.

what about skinny people who have it?.....

That's really not the point.

you did not get my point did ya?.....

This thread is not about diabetes. The point is lost on you. It was sarcasm. Now, talk about the topic or get lost.

 

[ChrisL]

Make no mistake about it..............their agenda is to ban all guns here..............even though most of them deny it............

If they take the Supreme Court it will be a Kangaroo court and they will use Judicial Activism to get their way.......

Keep your powder dry...............they will be coming one day for all guns...................

and you'll meekly hand them over when they do.

Okay, time to talk seriously. This is about an industry and its conduct. There is no sane universe where giving Adam Lanza an AR-15 was EVER a good idea.

Yet the gun industry is doing exactly that, taking military grade weapons and intentionally marketing them to the most mentally unstable people in the country. They've pushed for weak gun laws to make it easy for Criminals to get them so people will be all scared and stuff and they can sell more, and they've made the streets more dangerous so that law enforcement wants more firepower, too.

again....

3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands....the year of the Sandy Hook shooting how many were used in mass shootings....? 1.

So who are all these mentally unstable people getting these AR-15s.....if they are mentally unstable they sure as hell aren't showing it by their actions twit.

Most LEGAL gun owners never shoot anyone. It is the gang members and the black market that is mostly responsible for "illegal" weapons in the hands of people who should not have them. And people like Joey are doing their best to create an underground market for guns which would make them nearly impossible to trace and would totally "backfire" (pun intended ).

 

[ChrisL]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

They don't forget. They intentionally lie.

 

[ChrisL]

Should the families of those hit and killed by drunk drivers be able to sue the alcohol companies? Yes or no.

Given the Alcohol companies take reasonable precautions to keep people from driving drunk, no.

The gun industry goes out of its way to get guns to people like Nancy Lanza and Joker Holmes. This is a deliberate marketing decision. The more crime you have, the more people like ray and 2aguy who piss themselves over the thought of the scary negro breaking into their house want more guns, too.

You see, you have to ask yourself who gave Nancy the idea that she really needed an AR-15, a weapon designed to fight the Vietcong in the jungles of Vietnam. What could have possibly possessed her of the notion she needed that kind of firepower.

She wasn't buying it to defend herself from preschoolers.

And murdering people is already against the law. Derp. Should the gun manufacturers put labels on guns that say "don't murder people with this product?" Would that make you feel any better? Wow, I'll bet that would make a HUGE difference too.

 

[ChrisL]

No one gave lanza a gun....he committed murder to get his......twit. Perhaps we should make murder illegal....?

Or we don't sell it to a woman who thinks the best way to treat a child with a serious mental disorder is to take him to the shooting range, show him how to use a gun, and then let him play violent videogames for hours on end.

And if someone had bothered to do any kind of background check on her, they'd have found it out, just like the news media found it out within DAYS of looking into it.

Adam Lanza was 20 years old when he went on his killing spree. He was a LEGAL adult.

 

[ChrisL]

Okay moron....a quick primer on laws and how they work, especially in relation to guns and gun laws....read it...learn something...

Guy, I'm about 30 seconds from putting you on ignore because all you do is spam these threads instead of having a nice discussion.

This coming from the guy who calls other posters "tiny dick."

 

[ChrisL]

Nope. Not one. And no they don't. There is no legal precedent anywhere in the world for suing a manufacturer for the criminal misuse of their product. It was tried in Israel a few years back but the judge there rightfully reasoned that to allow such a abuse of the legal system would lead to the collapse of that legal system and ultimately the social fabric of the country.

So, if your goal is to cause the destruction of the legal system, congrats. You are well on your way.

Again, you are ignoring the tobacco settlement as a precedent.

The Tobacco industry WAS encouraging the illegal use of it's products. They were intentionally marketing their product to underaged children because they knew from research nobody starts smoking when they are 30. The lawsuits bore this out when they looked at internal documents.

Now, here you have a gun industry that is intentionally allowing criminals to get guns, so that guys like 2AGuy and Ray piss themselves at the thought of a scary Negro and want a gun, too. The market to nuts like Nancy Lanza who think the Zombie apocolypse is coming. And when someone says, "Hey, maybe we need some sensible gun control", they double down on "Obama's gonna take your guns" to boost sales.

I simply cannot think of a more manifestly irresponsible industry.

And children STILL get cigarettes and still smoke.

 

[ChrisL]

Lanza may have made stupid decisions, but I would hardly call that unstable. She was separated from her son and couldn't get through to him. The only thing they had in common was the fascination of guns, so she used that in effort to try and connect with him. Patients with his mental condition seldom if ever get violent.

---
That "fascination of guns" cost her her life, and that's OK if she endangers only her own life.
When her "fascination" leads to the slaughter of dozens of young children, then it's a wake-up call.
.

No...it's not. again...3,750,000 AR-15s in private hands......1 was used to kill at Sandy Hook.......only anti-gun nuts label that a problem.

Mass shootings are a rare occurrence, only 0.1% of ALL murders are mass shootings. It's only because the media and the government use hyperbole whenever one incident occurs that they seem "commonplace."

 

[ChrisL]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

And the study from 2010 that Obama requested showed the same results. These loons don't care about the honest law abiding citizens in the United States. It's like they are on the side of the criminals.

 

[ChrisL]

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

She didn't know he was dangerous.....he was a nonviolent, detached kid.......

everyone knew he was unstable. that's why his father had nothing to do with him. but please, continue to mischaracterize him.

He had autism. Autistic kids are oftentimes "weird." That doesn't make them dangerous or violent. Why don't you post your credentials here that makes you able to make such a diagnosis.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....

They also include suicides in those stats, and the classify 17 to 20-year-old gangbangers as "children."

 

[ChrisL]

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

Yes, AFTER she showed him how to use them.
AFTER she took him to a gun range
AFTER she let him play violent video games for hours
AFTER she started talking openly about having him committed without securing her guns first.

Her guns were locked in a safe, so she did have the secured. She had no way of knowing that her son would flip out and kill her.

 

[ChrisL]

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry

BRIDGEPORT — Gun-safety advocates hailed a judge’s ruling that victims’ families can sue the manufacturer of the military-style rifle used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

hey called the Thursday decision by Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellisa landmark in the fight against the epidemic of mass shootings.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was an “important win” for the Newtown families and other victims.


“They deserve their day in court and we are pleased that at least for now they'll get it, despite the defendants' best efforts to derail this case,” Gross said. “Victims of gun violence are not second-class citizens.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who became the state’s leading advocate for gun-control reforms after the Newtown school massacre, said firearms companies should not be allowed blanket immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits.

“I look at this as a moral victory,” Malloy said.

Gun makers, dealers and sellers had claimed the Newtown families did not have legal standing.

But Bellis ruled that the 2005 federal law shielding gun makers from liability does not override the claims by the Sandy Hook families that the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle is a military-style rifle that should never have been marketed to civilians.

The judge’s decisions comes in the middle of a contentious race for the nation’s presidency, in which the Sandy Hook families’ lawsuit has become pivotal.

Bellis ordered participating lawyers to her courtroom Tuesday for a conference to prepare for trial. An appeal of the decision, however, could delay the issue.

Josh Koskoff, the attorney from the Bridgeport-based Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, representing the Newtown families, said he was pleased with Bellis’s ruling.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” Koskoff said in a statement. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”

Attorneys for the defendant gun makers, distributors and dealer did not respond for requests for comment on Thursday.Michael Bazinet, public affairs director for the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time.

U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both Democrats, met with gun safety advocates Thursday and called for the repeal of the laws protecting the gun industry from lawsuits.

“It is a historic and seismic step to open the courthouse doors for gun violence survivors and others who have legitimate legal complaints against the gun industry,” said Blumenthal. “It is a powerful impetus and momentum for ongoing reform efforts to stop gun violence that is an epidemic and public health crisis in our nation.”


This next election is CRITICAL...........as there will probably be 3 Supremes nominated.............Here in a lower court..............they say they can now sue the gun manufacturers..................incredible.......

they can sue.

but people beat the cigarette companies, too, for making a product that was inherently dangerous.

will they win? never know. but they must have drafted their case really well.

Yet, way more people die from smoking related illnesses than from being shot. Hmm.